Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Its official, Trump broke the law


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

C'mon, they didn't even miss the deadline for giving them money.  Just because money was approved, doesn't mean it needed to be released that day.

me too, then i can kill my neighbor for his lands and women in the coming barbarism towards feudalism. the perishing of the weak and assault on the life expectancy of the strong will be a small p

No war from 1933 to 1941....but lots of New Deal fascism. Nice try.....

Posted Images

Of course, laws themselves represent the ultimate interference of the government into how we live our natural lives.  There is even an entire branch of government built on this, called the judiciary.  I'm hopeful that our new glorious president will relieve us from the slavery of following the bidding of these Ivy league elites !

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Of course, laws themselves represent the ultimate interference of the government into how we live our natural lives.  There is even an entire branch of government built on this, called the judiciary.  I'm hopeful that our new glorious president will relieve us from the slavery of following the bidding of these Ivy league elites !

me too, then i can kill my neighbor for his lands and women in the coming barbarism towards feudalism.

the perishing of the weak and assault on the life expectancy of the strong will be a small price to pay for the glorious display of unbridled narcissism.

Edited by godzilla
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Hal.  The administration didn’t have any obligation to release the funds on a specific date.  It was released in the same fiscal year, which is all that’s required.  This is much ado about nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the funds were expected, though, and then didn't come forward that's enough for a quid pro quo.  Here's the money... oops hang on... there's something we'd like you to do for us though... investigate this guy's family... see, he's running against me and...

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, godzilla said:

me too, then i can kill my neighbor for his lands and women in the coming barbarism towards feudalism.

the perishing of the weak and assault on the life expectancy of the strong will be a small price to pay for the glorious display of unbridled narcissism.

The new no world order will be even more rewarding with the Deferred Purgatory Agreement the Pope just secured us.

Fuck everyone before they fuck me is my motto from now on.   But I'll start with conservatives they'll understand it's nothing personal. Clobbering a lefty would be too much like bludgeoning a baby harp seal or a puppy or something.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shady said:

The administration didn’t have any obligation to release the funds on a specific date.  It was released in the same fiscal year, which is all that’s required.

He required more than that according to the law.

Quote

The law at issue, the Impoundment Control Act, was enacted in 1974 over the veto of President Richard M. Nixon. It limits a president’s power to withhold money that has been allocated by Congress, requiring approval from the legislative branch to do so.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/gao-trump-ukraine.html

You don't have a link to a copy of that approval? Too bad, Trump could probably use it too.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, eyeball said:

He required more than that according to the law.

You don't have a link to a copy of that approval? Too bad, Trump could probably use it too.

When there’s no specific release date, how can it be withheld?  It was released in the same fiscal year.  Congress should probably address that when they appropriate money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shady said:

When there’s no specific release date, how can it be withheld?  It was released in the same fiscal year.  Congress should probably address that when they appropriate money.

Wiggle wiggle wiggle.  Imagine that I had an agreement with my kids that they'd get an allowance for taking out the garbage and doing the dishes, and that they could do whatever they wanted in their rooms.  What if I then threatened to withhold their allowance for not cleaning up their rooms, only relenting when reminded of our existing agreement?  Giving them their allowance a day later wouldn't take away from my original intent - to ignore the agreement and use extortion to get something I wanted, but wasn't actually entitled to.  Sure, I can try to excuse myself by saying "What's your problem?  You got it didnt't you?" Yeah, they did - but my actions still speak to my ethics and trustworthiness, as well as what I'm willing to do get my own way.

As a parent, attempting to screw over my kids when it comes to their allowance isn't illegal.  But when it comes to a world leader trying to extort action that will benefit him personally, it doesn't matter if he relented shortly after.  It is indicative of his character, and it's also illegal according to the laws of the United States.   I don't understand how you and others can continue to support someone so obviously unethical while condemning Trudeau for his ethical lapses.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Wiggle wiggle wiggle. 

If a law doesn't explicitly date how soon money that's appropriated needs to be released, then there's no issue.  If it goes to the Supreme Court, Trump wins.  If there is an explicit date he loses. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shady said:

If a law doesn't explicitly date how soon money that's appropriated needs to be released, then there's no issue.  If it goes to the Supreme Court, Trump wins.  If there is an explicit date he loses. 

there is a date. and Ukraine didn't get all of the assistance because the administration delayed too long.

Edited by godzilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shady said:

When there’s no specific release date, how can it be withheld?  

With the approval from Congress that the law requires otherwise he does what he's told.

Quote

It was released in the same fiscal year.  Congress should probably address that when they appropriate money.

Congress didn't appropriate the money Trump did.  If you truly don't understand what the word appropriate means in the context of this issue there's little reason to believe you're capable of understanding much if anything about it at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eyeball said:

With the approval from Congress that the law requires otherwise he does what he's told.

Congress didn't appropriate the money Trump did.  If you truly don't understand what the word appropriate means in the context of this issue there's little reason to believe you're capable of understanding much if anything about it at all.

Trump can't appropriate money.  Congress controls all spending.  Perhaps you need to re-read the separation of powers within the American government.  Regardless, it's not withheld if there's not no specific release date, and it's released within the same fiscal year.  If it goes to the Supreme Court, Trump would win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

With the approval from Congress that the law requires otherwise he does what he's told.

Congress didn't appropriate the money Trump did.  If you truly don't understand what the word appropriate means in the context of this issue there's little reason to believe you're capable of understanding much if anything about it at all.

Regarding who can appropriate funds.  You even acknowledge it in a previous post. 

Quote

The law at issue, the Impoundment Control Act, was enacted in 1974 over the veto of President Richard M. Nixon. It limits a president’s power to withhold money that has been allocated by Congress, requiring approval from the legislative branch to do so.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shady said:

Trump can't appropriate money.  Congress controls all spending.  Perhaps you need to re-read the separation of powers within the American government.  Regardless, it's not withheld if there's not no specific release date, and it's released within the same fiscal year.  If it goes to the Supreme Court, Trump would win.

Perhaps you need to read the definition of appropriate in this case. Trump appropriated the money for his own purpose without permission. Congress OTOH did have permission as well as the permission to gave Trump his instructions on what to de next with the money. He didn't as required by law and got caught. Probably because he doesn't understand what terms like appropriate mean in the context of when he's doing it.  Like you he applied the term as an adjective instead of a verb.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Shady said:

Regarding who can appropriate funds.  You even acknowledge it in a previous post. 

Please go look up the definition of appropriate. It would also be appropriate if you looked up the meaning of context as well. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how Trump fans use the fact the money was eventually paid as evidence nothing illegal was going on.

They completely ignore that the money was finally paid only after the Whisleblower complaint had been made and was going to be made public. 

It's a hap hazard way to cover their tracks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boges said:

I love how Trump fans use the fact the money was eventually paid as evidence nothing illegal was going on.

They completely ignore that the money was finally paid only after the Whisleblower complaint had been made and was going to be made public. 

It's a hap hazard way to cover their tracks. 

No.  I didn’t say there was nothing illegal going on.  Nor did I ever say there wasn’t a quid pro quo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Please go look up the definition of appropriate. It would also be appropriate if you looked up the meaning of context as well. 

 

Ditto.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Perhaps you need to read the definition of appropriate in this case. Trump appropriated the money for his own purpose without permission. Congress OTOH did have permission as well as the permission to gave Trump his instructions on what to de next with the money. He didn't as required by law and got caught. Probably because he doesn't understand what terms like appropriate mean in the context of when he's doing it.  Like you he applied the term as an adjective instead of a verb.

You obviously have no idea what you’re taking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shady said:

You obviously have no idea what you’re taking about.

Obviously I do.

Quote

ap·pro·pri·ate

adjective
/əˈprōprēət/
suitable or proper in the circumstances.
"a measure appropriate to a wartime economy"

 
verb
/əˈprōprēˌāt/

1.
take (something) for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.
"his images have been appropriated by advertisers"

2.
devote (money or assets) to a special purpose.
"there can be problems in appropriating funds for legal expenses"

https://www.google.com/search?q=appropriate&rlz=1C1CHFX_enCA647CA647&oq=appropriate&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.3795j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

What definition for appropriate were you using and in what context, as an adjective or a verb?

The link I provided even sounds out the word in the relevant contexts. How appropriate is that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Obviously I do.

What definition for appropriate were you using and in what context, as an adjective or a verb?

The link I provided even sounds out the word in the relevant contexts. How appropriate is that?

Congress appropriates funds.  In this case congress appropriated money specifically for Ukraine.  Trump didn’t do that.  He’s accused of freezing those funds, before ultimately releasing them to Ukraine.  It’s not that complicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Obviously I do.

What definition for appropriate were you using and in what context, as an adjective or a verb?

The link I provided even sounds out the word in the relevant contexts. How appropriate is that?

Btw.  This might interest you.  It’s called the House Committee on Appropriations.  It’s job is pass appropriations bills.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Appropriations

Edited by Shady
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Shady said:

Congress appropriates funds.  In this case congress appropriated money specifically for Ukraine.  

Yes I know what Congress does and why in this case. The difference is that they did so with permission.

Quote

Trump didn’t do that.  He’s accused of freezing those funds, before ultimately releasing them to Ukraine.  It’s not that complicated.

It would be a lot less complicated if you would stop being disingenuous about the fact that Trump appropriated those funds without permission, inappropriately that is, and is being accused of using them for his own purpose.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...