Govt watchdog says White House violated law by withholding Ukraine aid

That would be in US Code.

 

Trump actually made Obstruction super easy when he said he was going to fight ALL the subpoenas.... If he had only fought some of them, then it would have been very unlikely Article 2 could have existed...

Everybody thought it was a foolish move at the time, although obviously required since nobody requested could defend his actions on Ukraine (or Mueller)..

Rock and a hard place...

 

Not according to Trump or his attorneys... why would you disagree with your president?

 

And that is what the court is for but the dem clown show did not want to settle the dispute as all others have and instead created a useless article.

 

Not according to the latest Trump argument

SNIP
Judge Karen Henderson pointedly asked the Justice Department lawyer whether the administration believes the House could never ask the courts to enforce a subpoena against the executive branch.

“That is our position, your honor,” Mooppan said.
ENDSNIP

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...cgahn-testimony-trump-impeachment/2740779001/

 

She never knew about Biden threatening the Ukrainians for $1 Billion? She is either incompetent or a liar. You choose.

 

You're cherry-picking. Biden's actions followed administration policy. Trump's did not. He had already signed the bill approving aid to the Ukraine, then turned around and used it as a quid pro quo to obtain investigations that helped him politically. Trump ran on a Republican Platform that prohibited "lethal aid" to Ukraine. Cruz had added an amendment to the Republican platform that allowed such aid and it was withdrawn by Manafort acting through the RNC. Congress subsequently approved "lethal aid" in the form of the Javelin Missile sales to them. But, there were and are caveats. The missiles must be used only defensively and stored away from the "war zones" along the eastern Ukrainian border. Think the Russians don't know their exact locations? In case of an armor led Russian invasion, the first Russian step would be to take out the Javelin missile storage sites. The German-Russian gas deal? Of course, Trump is against it, as are all of the pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs. For the moment, German trade is more important to Putin than Ukrainian trade. If the Germans want to cut out the Ukrainian "middle men," who were boosting the price of Russian energy exports by charging a "transit fee," it isn't as important to Putin as the basic sale. You are ignoring the pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs, such as Dmytro Firtash, whom U.S. prosecutors have identified as an associate of Russian organized crime and is in the process of being extradited to the U.S. to stand trial, and who was a close fried of the former Ukrainian Chief Prosector Viktor Shokin, whom the U.S. (via Biden), the EU, and the IMF insisted be fired before providing aid or loans.

 

The dems shelved their subpoena's so...irrelevant.

 

From their interpretation Trump broke the rules, this could be a great way out for the Dems, censure Trump for this and then let it lie.

 

Cite the part that gives "plenary powers" to the President regarding foreign policy. The Code must conform to the Constitution, as the underlying law.

 

You don't seriously think Trump would agree to that do you? Of course, they could do it without his approval, but McConnell and Senate Republicans would have to approve. What's the majority required for a censure? Just checked...simple majority. So...the Democrats might be able to get that...four cross overs.

 

Not all of them, which is why the court is still deciding on the single case, which I believe should eventually result in a single binding SCOTUS decision that will put all this ridiculous nonsense to bed for good.

A witness getting a subpoena from either side of Congress must appear. Period.

I believe this will be the biggest decision of the past 10 years of the SCOTUS.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/politics/mcgahn-trump-congress-lawsuit.html

Unfortunately, Document subpoenas will likely have to be continued to handled case-by-case... But there has to be a faster than "fast track" in those cases as well.

 

And?

 

What about a ruling that subpoena's must be honored, but "executive privilege" may be exercised on a question-by-question basis, much as the 5th amendment? That ruling would then become the precedent for the others...and, I believe, it would be consistent with past Court rulings.

 

Trump told the Judiciary that the Federal Courts can NEVER make that decision.

 

And yet Trump is still impeached.

 

LOL at Trump broke the rules

Trump broke the Law, not rules...

Too late for censure (at this time).... the GAO ruling will have to be used in the impeachment trial as evidence in Article I, since it is directly on point to part of the Article.

 

Do you recall when and where he made that claim?

 

Meaning Article I, of the impeachment charges, abuse of power. Agreed. But, wouldn't it also apply to Article II, obstruction of Congress (in their exercise of the powers of the purse)?

 

Don McGahn is still ongoing.

 

He is already impeached and the Senate already has the articles.

 

That's fine... Nobody is trying to rule against EP here... But nobody from Trump has appeared and claimed EP in this context.... yet...

That day will come, of course... but I don't believe you can claim blanket EP without even appearing and being questioned...

 

Federal Court. The Don McGahn case. Also the New York Tax case, but that is where he alleged that he is immune from all criminal investigations while President - but it still relies on the same legal theory of absolute immunity.

 

Maybe on Article 2... that's a pretty deep dive for now.. But I know this ruling clearly says the aid hold was against the law, and the aid hold is mentioned specifically in Article 1.. Clear connection there...

 

I agree.