The 2020 USA POTUS election politics, the civil war, and the world war (Part 1)

70

Ok, this is what I dont get. Every report frames this as “leveraging foreign aid to hurt a political rival.” But isnt it really “leveraging foreign aid to investigate political corruption”, which is in no way inappropriate, let alone a crime? I mean, if something about Biden, et al, is made up, call it out as made up - but no one does, they just brush it off as unsubstantiated and completely irrelevant. Correct or not, it only fosters and reinforces the perceived narrative that “it doesnt matter if Biden is guilty or not, we’re just pissed Trump would dare to ask the question in the first place.”

All the legality concerns in leaked emails (I think coming from the so-called whistleblower) has been that by not disbursing the aid by a certain date would make it illegal to disburse - in other words, the authorization to spend the money would expire. Of course it would’ve been illegal after the authorization expired, and it wasnt disbursed after the authorization expired - the aid was reauthorized and then disbursed, exactly as required. So why is it being framed that it was illegal to not disburse the funds immediately? An authorization is not a requirement, Congress cant force money to be spent.

If you’re going to respond with claims of “ignorance”, “blind loyalty” and “real patriot”, dont bother. This is a serious question in search of a serious answer.

2 Likes
71

From news reports and from Wikipedia

This quick copy and paste job is for the information (only) of all participants here. The bolding is my own:

People close to Bolton said he wanted to testify, and a spokeswoman denied that he was behind the leak of the book, adding that the National Security Council has had a copy of it since Dec. 30.

The White House National Security Council is the principal forum used by the President of the United States for consideration of national security, military, and foreign policy matters with senior national security advisors and Cabinet officials and is part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

For whatever it might be worth, I totally believe Bolton is not the source of the leak. I believe it came from within the White House itself and is directly attributable to Trump’s incompetent management thereof.

72

Of course, as I’m sure you will admit that Trump could just be a real patriot, trying to buck the system of government growth and corruption, trying to leverage U.S. payoffs for behavior favorable to the U.S., trying to make America and her citizens safer and stronger.

Couldn’t Trump just be trying to Make America Great Again?

2 Likes
73

A serious answer then.

I don’t know if it’s illegal to investigate a political rival, but I do think that it is inappropriate to be directly involved in the investigation. The government has other agencies for such investigations (CIA?).

Regarding the legality concerns, I don’t know whether what you described is relevant. The GAO report described why the hold up was illegal. While “leveraging foreign aid to investigate political corruption” may not be illegal, it must be done according to the law. The report mentions what is required to delay or cancel authorized spending. Those procedures were not followed. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

The Biden story has been public since at least 2015, so it just seems awfully convenient to bring it up again during an election. I don’t believe that the president’s motivation is to investigate corruption. He didn’t care about the actual investigation, he only needed an appearance of an investigation – a public statement, a soundbite he could use at his rallies or at the debates.

74

Or, to put it another way, Biden was retired from politics, so they let bygones be bygones as he quietly rode into the sunset. Nixon being pardoned, so to speak. Then Biden became active in politics again, suddenly making his past actions relevant to the present. Thus, the timing was…timely.

That’s just to say, there a confirmation bias in play here, to some extent. What I’d consider inappropriate is a directive that “You wont get your aid money until you determine that Biden was corrupt.” To date, there has been zero implication that the result of the investigation was ever in play, just that there be an investigation.

The GAO report also bases this entirely on the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The ICA includes specific remedies to a violation of this act

§687. Suits by Comptroller General
If, under this chapter, budget authority is required to be made available for obligation and such budget authority is not made available for obligation, the Comptroller General is hereby
expressly empowered, through attorneys of his own selection, to bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require such budget authority to be made available for obligation, and such court is hereby expressly empowered to enter in such civil action, against any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States, any decree, judgment, or order which may be necessary or appropriate to make such budget authority available for obligation.

Was this process followed? Oh yeah, the Comptroller General is the head of the GAO, the department that produced this report simply declaring the deferral of aid was illegal. (Of course, no mention that there are actual remedies specified within the ICA, namely that it’s their own duty to enforce the act and get the funding released.) In short, the clearly stated remedy is to use civil court to bypass the official withholding the funding, not to kick that official out of office.

And that’s if the withheld funding was even illegal to begin with (the details are way to nuanced to draw an opinion myself, but the OMB clearly disagrees with the assertion, and at the time seemed to take actions that indicate they believed they were complying with the law).

1 Like
75

If that remedy is the proper legal remedy, then perhaps “leveraging foreign aid to investigate corruption” does not warrant removal from office. Although I suspect that this is not entirely correct, as the GAO report mentions “policy reasons”, vs some other reasons that may be allowable and then pursued using the remedy you mentioned.

Motivation is the other basis for this. I don’t believe that the intent was to investigate corruption, and that this reason was made up after the fact (by someone much smarter) as an excuse. Getting back to your original question I guess many others believe this as well, which is why “every report” frames it as “leveraging foreign aid to hurt a political rival.”

The funds were released after the delay became public. The crime was in the reasons for and the action of delaying aid, it doesn’t matter that it was released in time.

76

C’mon now… Have to pay attention to Sekulow.

DANGER! DANGER!
Do we really want to impeach every future president just because they commit crimes and publicly state the crimes?
DANGER!

Do we really want future presidents NOT to publicly solicit foreign enemies to commit cybercrimes against political rivals?

Do we really want future presidents to NOT directly threaten witnesses while they’re testifying?

DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!
If this isn’t ended immediately, the next president might not source intelligence from criminal associates (such as Parnas) over US Intelligence agencies and might not parrot Russian propoganda. It will be ripping up the constitution.
DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

1 Like
77

These so-called “policy reasons” are not in the act. Such reasons are why the Comptroller would utilize the court to release the funding, since the deferral would violate the Act. The three reasons to defer that are listed in the Act would be reason for the court to deny the end-around attempt.

The whole purpose of the ICA is to ensure funding can be disbursed, and ensure no one person can implement their own personal agenda instead of what’s been properly voted for and authorized, by simply not writing checks - the checks will get written regardless of any one person’s cooperation. It in no way criminalizes not disbursing funds - despite what everyone seems to insist.

I don’t know if motivation can create a crime, when there was no crime committed. But regardless, motivations can be questioned equally on both sides of the aisle.

2 Likes
78

Watched the trial Q & A today. Both sides did their best.

Trouble is, there appears no way Trump will be ousted and disqualified. And that is what the Dems would need to make this worthwhile for them. Ouster alone, for example, ain’t gonna get 'er done. Consider:

150,000 people showed up for Trump yesterday evening in, of all places, Wildwood!! It’s January. Wildwood is D-E-A-D. Not to mention Wildwood is also in deep blue New Jersey.

So if they merely kick Trump out of office, and fail to disqualify him, he will simply run again in November and win.

I don’t think Democrats fully realize how this trial is riling Trump supporters up. This is because the folks getting riled do not generally live in the same places Democrats call home. And those same Trump folks do not have much of a media voice. Only voice they have is at the polls, and that is where their voice will be heard in November. The Democrats should have let sleeping dogs lie. Too late now, though.

1 Like
79

The Dems don’t care about Trump supporters. I believe everything they are doing, and have been doing since the:

Access Hollywood piece, Hillary-Fusion collusion hoax, stripper/hooker payoff tale, stripper/hooker lawyer allegations, kids in dog cages accusation, border jumper toilet water hoax, second hand blower story, quid pro quo disappearing act, speedy impeachment semi-hearings, and slow-rolled sending of the impeachment to the Senate, (others that I can’t recall at this time of night)

have all been designed primarily to fill their coffers and incite their supporters. It has certainly worked, at least thru the 2018 election. Normally they face a Repub candidate / office holder who will just roll over and not fight back, so they don’t have to go the extent they have with Trump. One of the things that has endeared him to his supporters is the fact that he fights back, frequently using the same tactics as his attackers.

80

Trump was not on the ballot in 2018. That should not have made a difference . . . but it did.

Just this week Republicans won a hotly-contested race in suburban Houston. That is not Republican “slam-dunk” territory. It is not rural Texas. The Democrats thought they had a REAL chance and they poured all kinds of money into that race. But the Republicans did not just win. They absolutely killed the Democrat candidate. I attribute the size of the Republican victory to the impeachment and trial.

It is difficult for me, with Democrats, to comprehend exactly what they are doing or thinking. This whole thing could be intentional and myself too dumb to catch on. But regardless, this trial is destroying the Democrats’ lead candidate, Mr. Biden. And if the Senate opts for witnesses it’ll only become worse . . . for Biden.

It’s only my opinion, and I guess Mrs. Clinton and President Obama agree, but I think they would be smarter to attack Bernie and leave Biden alone. . . . this in terms of having a chance in November, I mean.

ETA

Just saw this quote from Senator Graham, which supports the above:

“It is clear to me that there is ample evidence for the President to be concerned about conflicts of interest on behalf of Hunter Biden and that Vice President Joe Biden’s failure to take appropriate action was unacceptable. This combination, in my view, undercut America’s message on reforming corruption in Ukraine. There is a mountain of evidence to suggest the Bidens’ behavior was harmful to the United States. The House managers’ claim that the sole reason President Trump temporarily paused the aid was purely personal and political, not public, does not withstand scrutiny."

Ho boy!! Do the Democrats really want to “go there”? Of course they would have their customary American mainstream media shield, working hard to keep shade on it all. But still, these trial proceedings are being broadcast verbatim, without that shield. More and more people all the time would learn what Biden did. Unless they truly are trying to destroy Biden’s candidacy, the Democrats should not want this.

81

Only my opinion, but I believe Mrs. Clinton is only concerned with Mrs. Clinton. As for Pres. Obama, I’ve seen indications that he is helping Warren. She is probably the most credible candidate that aligns with his views of America. Of course, with her heritage, that is understandable. :laughing:

For a second, I read that as Senator Gramm.

82

With so much attention in the USA on the trial, the Super Bowl, Groundhog Day, the Iowa caucuses, and the State of the Union address . . . all happening in the next several days . . . it becomes too easy to ignore Brexit Day tomorrow in the UK. Brexit Day has been a LONG time coming!

We don’t live in the UK. But what is happening there mirrors our own highly controversial new course where foreign policy is concerned, owing to the views of President Trump.

Trump believes in (primarily) bilateral foreign relations. Obama, Bush Jr., Cary, Tillerson, McCain (now deceased), the EU, and countless other prominent individuals and groups of leaders have a STRONG preference for multilateral foreign relations. There is a vigorous and emphatic disagreement here among the parties. This is one of many reasons Trump is so disliked (to say the least).

As for Boris, I’m really uncertain of his stand personally, and this might be wrong. But I sense Boris’s Brexit stand emerged, more than anything else, out of his respect for the way his people voted. I’m less certain Boris is a Brexiteer personally . . . not that this matters all that much.

Regardless, look for the USA and the UK soon to enter into a bilateral trade deal. Trump has not opined much recently on Brexit . . . but then he has been a little busy! :grinning:

My own opinion is a preference for Trump’s approach to foreign relations. The reason? To me as a Conservative the Constitution of the United States of America is second in importance only to the Holy Bible. The President should preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution at ALL costs. This can become difficult when huge multinational deals require us to do this or that which might be contrary to our Constitution. No foreign entanglements should force us into actions which subordinate our founding Constitutional principles. This stuff is easier to manage when relationships are bilateral and, yes, I’m willing to carve out an exception for the new trilateral USMCA.

Anyway, this bilateral vs. multilateral stuff is part and parcel of the civil war and yes, even the world war as we see now happening in the UK.

1 Like
83

Interesting trial developments late this afternoon. The Democrats have lost the vote regarding witnesses. Vote was 49 for and 51 against calling witnesses.

But the Democrats appear at this hour unwilling to move on to the inevitable acquittal vote. Details are not yet available, but talk is this trial could continue through to next Wednesday. That’s a long time since the outcome continues already to be known, as has been the case from the jump.

My take is the Democrats do not want to give Trump his acquittal prior to the State of the Union, so great is their hate for him. Of course if they allow a vote prior to Tuesday evening then I’m wrong. But I’m hearing “Wednesday”.

The fact this messes up three of their candidates in Iowa for the Monday caucuses appears not to be a consideration so great, again, is the hate. Trump is the sole focus, messing with him and dirtying him up as much as is humanly possible. They want Trump standing up there impeached and NOT acquitted.

1 Like
84

Unbelievable!!
You’re right, total hate for our duly elected president. :rage:

1 Like
85

You are implying that his election has something to do with it. I think you forget that Bill Clinton was also duly elected, twice, and that didn’t stop him from being impeached. Point is, he’s not being impeached because he was elected, he’s being impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

3 Likes
86

I think their point was, Democrat leadership is now guilty of interfering in, and trying to unduly influence, an election. All because of the tunnel vision on getting rid of Trump.

If you want to question Trump"s motivation, fine - but investigating corruption within the government does have a legit purpose. Delaying a vote that appears inevitable has no purpose other than to harm or benefit certain candidates. I consider a leader in government openly using their power to manipulate the election process to be far, far worse than a foreign government trying to influence the results.

4 Likes
87

Not in my book… He was being impeached for hatred of the man & they started looking for a reason day 1. And for Nancy saying she prayed for Trump. Another lie, she hated Trump. :roll_eyes:

4 Likes
88

So true!

1 Like
89

I presume the “he” you’re talking about is Trump? We don’t all know why Trump was impeached. Specifically what high crime / misdemeanor?

If the “he” you were talking about is Bill Clinton, then yes, perjury is a high crime/misdemeanor.

1 Like