Govt watchdog says White House violated law by withholding Ukraine aid

Nope.

I'm pretty awesome. And I'm right.

 

You are thoroughly encouraged to review the explicit arguments being made by the DOJ before the federal courts. The link is provided above by @Egoboy .

Thr Courts are never permitted to intervene when Congress seens to enforce a subpoena against the Executive.

 

Go for it! You got this!

 

Thanks for proving my point!

 

Except that you don't have one.

 

Trump was required to release the funds to Ukraine no later than 9/30/19. He released them on 9/12/19.

 

Because he got caught.

 

Article 2. As upheld by the SCOTUS under U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.. Are you denying it? Where does the Constitution grant Congress authority over foreign policy?

 

Speculation.

 

Fact... whether that was the reason is speculation (Ha Ha), but it was after Schiff let him know Congress was investigating the perfect phone call...

 

The GAO? That's a big nothing burger. They've "annoyed" the White House through most administrations with accounting "slaps on the wrist".

Currently...

"It isn’t clear what affect the GAO findings will have other than boosting progressive spirits. White House aides comforted themselves Thursday with the fact that such reports are often little more than press releases.

The nonpartisan agency, for instance, reported that the Obama administration broke the law when it exchanged five Taliban prisoners for Bowe Bergdahl, who had been captured after deserting his Army unit. There were no legal repercussions. When the GAO found that the George W. Bush administration had violated the law by paying journalists to promote government programs, Congress just asked for a reimbursement from the private firms. Even further back, during the Clinton administration, the watchdogs discovered that the D.C. Financial Control Board had illegally overpaid staff members. Congress voted to retroactively approve the raises."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...&utm_medium=ora-video-widget&utm_source=polls

 

Pure speculation he was already being pressed within his own advisers to release the aid and SO WHAT? Where is the impeachable offense that requires removal? Obama was found in violation of the same law seven times by the report I heard was he ever impeached for it?

 

I don't have time to read through nearly 400 posts, but did anyone mention that Biden bragged about breaking the law when he threatened to hold up funds to Ukraine?

 

I would argue that at the time the Constitution was written significant "foreign policies" were documented by "treaties" and "international agreements," which required Senate approval by a 2/3rds majority. Further, ambassadors - those officially representing the United States - also require confirmation by the Senate. And finally, of course, the Senate may "convict upon impeachment" and remove the President from office. Those are substantial powers over the activities of the President in foreign policy issues.
I recognize that the U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright does rightfully give the President exceptional foreign policy powers, not possessed in domestic affairs, but that such powers fall far short of being "plenary" in regard to using such powers for personal or electoral gain. In doing so, the issue before the Senate next week will be not over whether the President had the power to withhold appropriated funds, but whether or not such withholding was for the purpose of personal gain and, as such, an abuse of power.
So...wherein the U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright does, in fact, state: "It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate PLENARY AND EXCLUSIVE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international - a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress," it continues with "but which of course, like every other governmental power, MUST BE EXERCISED IN SUBORDINATION TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION."
It is the latter provisions which would, in my opinion, prohibit the President from using such powers in an abusive manner. Curtiss-Wright means - IMO - only the President may speak for the U.S. government in foreign affairs. Neither members of the Judiciary or the Congress represent the United States in foreign affairs. But that that power does not free the President from the Constitutional restraints placed upon that power, through statute law provisions, such as the Impoundment Control Act. That said...if the constitutionality of the ICA is tested in the Courts, we will probably hear more about the Curtiss-Wright decision.

 

It's a thread on PF.com... what do you think??

That's one of my all time favorite ridiculous posting topics on here...

 

He was pressed by his own advisers not to put the hold on the aid in the first place...

The removable offense is that he did it for personal political pressure... putting the National Security of the US at risk... SO THAT!

The fact that the action was simultaneously against the law is just gravy IMHO... but I'm informed there are a fair amount of GOP Senators who take the GAO seriously... we shall see...

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/01/...-law-raises-the-stakes-of-senate-exoneration/

 

He threatened...but didn't. Trump threatened and did.

 

He did it because of corruption in the country and corruption involving the son of a high official in a pay for pay scheme. Fully within his authority to do so.

 

SCOTUS upheld plenary power and that has long been recognized go argue with them. You asked where it comes from, you got it. If it goes to court there is the precedent stare decisis. And as the witnesses testified, the DEMOCRAT witnesess testified the withholding of such aid by the Executive branch is routine.

 

They got the aid.

 

Plenary power, within the bounds of the Constitution. You are trying to argue that means "sole power," independent of the Constitution itself and that's simply, as I pointed out and the decision pointed out, untrue. The President may withhold appropriated funding in times of emergencies, as defined by statute law, and with the approval of Congress. In this case, he did neither.

 

Only after they were caught. If the police arrive before the bank teller hands over the money, the bank robbers still get arrested. The charge simply goes from "robbery" to "attempted robbery."

 

Exactly. He doesn't understand that the "preshudint" doesn't have unfettered power to ****ing things up.

 

My thoughts. No real shock. Dem delusions continue to be boring.

 

Wow! Excellent reasoning and impeccable sources! All around convincing as Hell!