WATCH LIVE: Public Impeachment Hearings (Vindman/Williams)

He kinda has that look doesn't he.

Like he should be screaming "It puts the lotion in the basket".

 

The President can use his power as he sees fit when it comes to foreign policy and has a fiduciary responsibility to insure taxpayer dollars are not sent to corrupt nations and corrupt governments without assurances it will not be used corruptly and a Constitution duty to make sure probable causes of corrupt on the highest levels including acts of bribery by foreign officials or citizens are fully investigated. The money was delayed not recisinded not denied.

 

Obama delayed 800 million to Pakistan.

 

Any one notice those two little shiny bumps on Nunes head?
Is that where he had his horns removed?

 

The usual petty nonsense from the usual suspect.

 

We were talking specifically about the OMB not the presidents power as it relates to Foreign policy. Do you disagree with the laws cited about OMB's power of appropriation and the timeframe in which they are to notify congress why they hold the money? There were several statues cited.

 

Aid, meeting. I'm not sure it makes a difference. It's the ask that matters.
But... I've seen a lot of different dates on when the aid was actually blocked. What is the earlies you have seen?

 

to your knowledge was this done?

"
If OMB believes that all or part of a budget is not required to resource a program or if the president decides that a program is no longer in the best interests of the United States, the ICA requires the White House to write a message to Congress (2 U.S.C. § 683(a)) stating:

(1) the amount of budget authority which he proposes to be rescinded or which is to be so reserved;

(2) any account, department, or establishment of the Government to which such budget authority is available for obligation, and the specific project or governmental functions involved;

(3) the reasons why the budget authority should be rescinded or is to be so reserved;

(4) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the proposed rescission or of the reservation; and

(5) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed rescission or the reservation and the decision to effect the proposed rescission or the reservation, and to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated effect of the proposed rescission or the reservation upon the objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget authority is provided."

 

Probably true, but I don't think withholding a WH meeting for investigations is going to move any needles.... withholding aid for investigations should.

I always heard the aid was "blocked" on 7/18, one week before the call, but it seems both morning witnesses today knew about it on 7/3, so I'll have to say 7/3 going forward... this could be significant, since this is now BEFORE the 7/10 drug deal meeting...

 

Are you talking about the black book that put Manafort in jail?

 

Maybe I confused those two. Can you quote a line from the 7/3 date?

 

Love it...

 

SNIP
JULY 3: The hold

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a national security official working at the White House, becomes aware that the military aid has been held up. He testified that he received a notice from the State Department. "That's when I was concretely made aware of the fact there was a hold placed," he said in testimony to lawmakers.
ENDSNIP

http://www.startribune.com/timeline-the-curious-release-of-military-aid-to-ukraine/564891462/

And this article is a week old. Williams confirmed 7/3 today as well.

This is a good simple timeline, except it excludes that there are reports some Ukrainians knew about the aid in early August, not late August/Politico article... Frankly, I find it very hard to believe it was 'announced' on 7/18 and the Ukrainians didn't know about it until a Politico article in late August.... This isn't a few million bucks here...

 

Just fyi I'm not for impeachment btw but maybe the route is to throw out a couple of scarifical lambs to placate upset independents

 

2019?

 

Yes. Supposedly the IG report drops on that date and Durham and Barr spring into action.

 

Schiff’s accomplishment.

 

I'm talking about John Durham's criminal investigation into the Obama-Clinton crime family's spy operation.

Perhaps he can arrange to get Manafort a new bunkmate...

 

Hysterical and so very true! It only takes common sense to see the truth here, but two people represented in this depiction have none (and no Libs, it isn't the guy in the middle)! And, for the record, I will recognize here and now that I believe the other is a bit self absorbed, to say the least!

 

The people to whom Vindman spoke had the requisite security clearance and the requisite need to know. Vindman does not know the identity of the whistleblower, but stating the name of the individuals to whom he spoke does provide assistance to those trying to oust the whistleblower.

Neither individual will be prosecuted because neither broke the law.

The only reason Republicans are pissed off is that Trump got caught.

Vindman is a policy decision adviser, not a lawyer. We almost never ask fact witnesses to make legal determinations as to whether a crime took place and, in many - perhaps even most - instances, it would be inappropriate to do such.

The only ones who will make even a semi-legal determination as to Trumps behavior are the members of the judiciary when they render a decision on the articles of impeachment and the members of the Senate when they vote on

 

Schiff seems unable to cite the statute or law that restrict the publication of the WB name. It's also in coflict with the letter from Pelosi in which she assured the WB would testify. Schiff is going rogue.

 

I don't know that any of that was necessary for the actions of the PRESIDENT.

 

This was a decision of the President in executing both his plenary power in foreign policy and fiduciary responsibilities.

 

So what's he investigating?

 

False. It was testified that the phone call was placed on a compartmentalized server. This means it was only available to those with both the level of clearance AND the "need to know".

Yes he knows the identity of the whistleblower. Everyone knows the identity of the whistleblower.

Yes they broke the law. The wb statute for the intelligence community covers neither the POTUS' phone call nor the testified disagreement with policy.

Keep up the charade though as long as you can. I'm really starting to enjoy it.