Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Vacuum7's Avatar
    Vacuum7 Posts: 47, Reputation: 2
    Junior Member
     
    #561

    Jan 19, 2020, 11:54 AM
    Parnas is a disgruntled associate of Rudy? There is something about being up for felony charges that makes you start making stories up....and digging your hole deeper: PARNAS IS A JOKE! Did you know Parnas is one of the turd's that helped fabricate the Steele Dossier? He is also tied in with Hillary Clinton: The Demos keep finding scum and trying to make them into something nice: YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD AND MAKE IT ANYTHING OTHER THAN A TURD!
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #562

    Jan 19, 2020, 12:57 PM
    Instead of ignoring and dismissing the allegations by Parnas and his accompanied documentation should we investigate?
    Why didn't the House do that? Wasn't that their job?

    You always have a pattern of defending conservative rumors and holding it as fact
    When have I done that?

    As to the Impound Act, you might have a legitimate gripe there, but I imagine that it is routinely violated and has been for years by other presidents. If that is true, then are you suggesting we prosecute all of them?

    BTW, there is a counter argument about Trump's violating that act. "The funds were a special appropriation, not a budget line item. Congress is working on a continual string of appropriations bills and continuing resolutions, rather than passing a budget as they’re supposed to.

    By The Impoundment Act of 1974 ( more properly, Article X of The Budget Act of 1974) the President may hold funds (impound them) for up to 45 days to ask Congress to rescind an appropriation. Since Congress has always ignored such requests, and never honored one - the practice has become to impound for not more than 45 days, then release.

    The President didn’t violate the letter or spirit of either the non-existent budget nor the appropriation nor the Bufget Act of ‘74, Article X.

    He says he impounded the funds over concern that other European countries were doing more to help Ukraine. I suppose one would have to examine the evidence that any other country did anything more than they would’ve otherwise in order to see if the President was effective at his stated purpose."

    https://www.quora.com/Did-President-...s-from-Ukraine
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #563

    Jan 19, 2020, 01:54 PM
    basically it is a classic bill Congress passes when they decide to abrogate their constitutional mandate until it is convenient for them to assume their defined role. Think the war power's act .
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #564

    Jan 20, 2020, 09:15 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Vacuum7 View Post
    Parnas is a disgruntled associate of Rudy? There is something about being up for felony charges that makes you start making stories up....and digging your hole deeper: PARNAS IS A JOKE! Did you know Parnas is one of the turd's that helped fabricate the Steele Dossier? He is also tied in with Hillary Clinton: The Demos keep finding scum and trying to make them into something nice: YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD AND MAKE IT ANYTHING OTHER THAN A TURD!
    Nothing like getting caught doing dirt to make you sing like a bird and that's just the way criminal and criminal enterprises work Vac. You can't catch a turd without using a turd can you?

    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Why didn't the House do that? Wasn't that their job?
    I'll make it simple for you. The dufus is using every trick in the book to keep people from knowing the truth about his antics and is covering up bad behavior hiding behind the law, courts take time, and with holding evidence using executive privilege which is illegal when wrongdoing is suspected and thus we have a charge of obstructing the congress.

    As to the Impound Act, you might have a legitimate gripe there, but I imagine that it is routinely violated and has been for years by other presidents. If that is true, then are you suggesting we prosecute all of them?
    And your evidence for that is what? You are assuming facts NOT in evidence.

    BTW, there is a counter argument about Trump's violating that act. "The funds were a special appropriation, not a budget line item. Congress is working on a continual string of appropriations bills and continuing resolutions, rather than passing a budget as they’re supposed to.
    I think the impound act covers ALL appropriations by the congress and signed into law by the president.

    By The Impoundment Act of 1974 ( more properly, Article X of The Budget Act of 1974) the President may hold funds (impound them) for up to 45 days to ask Congress to rescind an appropriation. Since Congress has always ignored such requests, and never honored one - the practice has become to impound for not more than 45 days, then release.
    Here's the timeline, so lets actually count the days.

    Sept. 11: The hold is lifted on the Ukraine assistance, 85 days after the Pentagon announced that aid had become available. That leaves only 19 days to obligate that funding. Sept. 30: End of the fiscal year. According to OMB's Sandy, $35 million in funds do not get spent in time to meet the deadline. Congress includes that same amount in a continuing resolution to ensure the aid reaches Ukraine.


    The President didn’t violate the letter or spirit of either the non-existent budget nor the appropriation nor the Bufget Act of ‘74, Article X.
    That's what the impeachment trial is all about!
    He says he impounded the funds over concern that other European countries were doing more to help Ukraine. I suppose one would have to examine the evidence that any other country did anything more than they would’ve otherwise in order to see if the President was effective at his stated purpose."

    https://www.quora.com/Did-President-...s-from-Ukraine
    You mean it took him several months to get those documented facts that are public records? Really? Sounds like a dodge, an excuse to justify HIS actions and why ignore his asking for a PERSONAL favor, get dirt on his political opponents and clear Vlad of meddling with the 2016 election by blaming the Ukraine. Man that's some favor.

    At least we are arguing facts and not just throwing rocks and talking trash.

    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    basically it is a classic bill Congress passes when they decide to abrogate their constitutional mandate until it is convenient for them to assume their defined role. Think the war power's act .
    Thank Nixon for the need of congress to CTOA!
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #565

    Jan 20, 2020, 03:34 PM
    You are assuming facts NOT in evidence.
    An absolutely incredible statement for you to make, especially considering this statement from you. "Sounds like a dodge, an excuse to justify HIS actions and why ignore his asking for a PERSONAL favor, get dirt on his political opponents and clear Vlad of meddling with the 2016 election by blaming the Ukraine. Man that's some favor." Where are your facts here? It's all just conjecture.

    That's what the impeachment trial is all about!
    So have the dems put accusations about the Impound Act into the articles of impeachment?
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #566

    Jan 20, 2020, 04:38 PM
    Why should it be a surprise to call you on a broad hypothetical situation you presented? As to the impound act we will just have to see how they present their case. It may well be just one example for his abuse of power charge.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #567

    Jan 20, 2020, 06:19 PM
    Why should it be a surprise to call you on a broad hypothetical situation you presented?
    This is what you present as a response???

    As to the impound act we will just have to see how they present their case. It may well be just one example for his abuse of power charge.
    Kind of like, "We will have to pass the bill in order to know what is in it?" I'm going to bet it's not even included. As always, so glad that Madame Pelosi is not a repub.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #568

    Jan 20, 2020, 06:40 PM
    Yes you have to have an impeachment to know what is in it afterall you haven't had one in a generation
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #569

    Jan 20, 2020, 07:06 PM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5vy...mZjGLrQPzr-9e0
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #570

    Jan 20, 2020, 08:00 PM
    Well the wait is over folks as repubs begin the rigged senate trail Tuesday at 9am eastern time. Non stop until the dufus is exonerated or shortly before the SOTU address.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #571

    Jan 21, 2020, 07:53 AM
    “Now for the evidence,” said the King (McConnell) , “and then the sentence”. “No!” said the Queen (Pelosi) , “first the sentence, and then the evidence!”
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #572

    Jan 21, 2020, 08:41 AM
    “Now for the evidence,” said the King (McConnell) , “and then the sentence”. “No!” said the Queen (Pelosi) , “first the sentence, and then the evidence!”
    When you have no more evidence than the dems have, then that's about the only strategy you can employ.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #573

    Jan 21, 2020, 09:06 AM
    No wonder you guys talk so dizzy, all you do is spin, spin spin, because ole Mitch doesn't want evidence or documentation, he wants a quick dismissal like his dufus said he wants. If repubs wanted evidence then he simply has to allow witnesses and documentation. It is that simple gentlemen, unless you want to continue this repub assisted cover up.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #574

    Jan 21, 2020, 09:31 AM
    ole Mitch doesn't want evidence or documentation, he wants a quick dismissal like his dufus said he wants. If repubs wanted evidence then he simply has to allow witnesses and documentation. It is that simple gentlemen, unless you want to continue this repub assisted cover up.
    That would be funny if I didn't think you were serious. Evidence? Documentation? Just needs to allow witnesses and documentation? The dems brought forward, day after day, many witnesses and assured us their testimony would be devastating. Well, didn't turn out that way, so all we are left with is an assurance that if they can just get MORE witnesses and documentation then, by George, they'll prove guilt then. Sorry to tell you, but it has become tiresome and tedious. Get this nonsense out of the way and move on. It's over.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #575

    Jan 21, 2020, 09:41 AM
    The evidence and testimony in the House was very clear to many that didn't just dismiss it and rubber stamp it as NO evidence. I think it telling you complain of NO evidence while the dufus with holds and hides what we all want to see. You have dismissed and ignored the Mueller Report and with held the grand jury notes, dismissed and ignored the cronies going to jail, and continue dismissing and ignoring the repubs lack of interest in hearing from the protected inner circle and the evidence that continues to flow from this mess.

    Great strategy dismiss and ignore you have going on for you...while it lasts, but if that's all you got, then that's all you got.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #576

    Jan 21, 2020, 10:49 AM
    Try putting that mess into a court and see how far you get. It's a joke. Even Mueller, after two years, declined to recommend that charges be brought.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #577

    Jan 21, 2020, 11:20 AM
    So just ignore that he was prohibited by rule and policy to bring charges against the executive? How convenient.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #578

    Jan 21, 2020, 12:26 PM
    So just ignore that he was prohibited by rule and policy to bring charges against the executive? How convenient.
    Then why did they appoint a special prosecutor when he did not have authority to bring charges? Wasn't that kind of dumb?
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #579

    Jan 21, 2020, 01:01 PM
    You will have to ask the DOJ about that since THEY made that call, however Mueller did catch a bunch of fish because of it, and there are a few lingering criminal cases they referred to local AG's, and despite Barr's spin it gave the House plenty of probable cause in which to proceed. Few know that a cases are still tied up in the court system from subpoenas brought by the House based on Mueller's findings, some to be ruled on soon and a few yet to be determined which is why no charges have been brought forth based on those proceedings as YET, and the executive has the right of appeal, which is where a few filings still reside.

    Yeah the courts are slow, but those are the rules WE are bound by.

    From 2nd link



    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #580

    Jan 21, 2020, 01:28 PM
    You do realize that Trump was free to fire Mueller, Comey, or any other member of the executive branch at any time he wanted to? It is his authority as president. What liberal group put that chart together?

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Impeachment [ 174 Answers ]

As Trump continues to dismantle NATO which is critical to the peace of the world and has been for 70 years, and as Trump continues to cater to the Putin enemy who is determined to bring down the United States and its allies, it is time to talk seriously about impeachment. No longer should decent...

It's time to drawup articles of impeachment [ 45 Answers ]

Barack and his minions are way out there in the left-lands of marxism and fascism. They have declared war on individualism, the right to contract, the right to own property, and now the right to free speech: "The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News...

President Clinton's impeachment [ 2 Answers ]

When President Clinton was impeached, why wasn't he removed from office? Now I understand that the Illinois governor is going to be removed from office if he is impeached. What's the deal?

Online poll: "Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?" [ 12 Answers ]

Live Vote: Should Bush be impeached? - Politics - MSNBC.com The currrent results may surprise you.


View more questions Search