Latest poll

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Can this be right ?

If a Democrat is President, lying about a blow-job is grounds for impeachment

If a Republican is President, betraying his country's defence policy again Russia...isn't

What am I missing here ?

Generally, Presidents are in charge of defence policy.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Generally, Presidents are in charge of defence policy.

In this case Floridaman withheld aid appropriated by Congress, after the statutory requirements set by Congress were met and still continues to hold 35 million in aid.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

In this case Floridaman withheld aid appropriated by Congress, after the statutory requirements set by Congress were met and still continues to hold 35 million in aid.

Temporary withholding funds for assuring that they are not wasted on corruption should not be cause for impeachment, nor even be considered a crime. Nor should lying about getting a blow job--unless it was under oath. But even then, a lesser slap on the wrist would be appropriate.

On the other hand getting the blow job could put the President under threat of blackmail which could be used to influence how he would apply or skew defense policy. It can be argued that any misstep of the President could be used as a means to influence his decisions on any policy, defense or otherwise. The point being, not that it would necessarily be impeachable, but that there need not be a distinction between missteps in regard to the effect on defense policy.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Temporary withholding funds for assuring that they are not wasted on corruption should not be cause for impeachment, nor even be considered a crime.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. They asked WTF is going on and were told nothing, why not?
Nor should lying about getting a blow job--unless it was under oath. But even then, a lesser slap on the wrist would be appropriate.

On the other hand getting the blow job could put the President under threat of blackmail which could be used to influence how he would apply or skew defense policy. It can be argued that any misstep of the President could be used as a means to influence his decisions on any policy, defense or otherwise. The point being, not that it would necessarily be impeachable, but that there need not be a distinction between missteps in regard to the effect on defense policy.

I have no idea what you are trying to say in the last paragraph, I tried to parse it?
Are you saying his actions were because he was incompetent and therefore the missteps should not be impeachable?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I have no idea what you are trying to say in the last paragraph, I tried to parse it?
Are you saying his actions were because he was incompetent and therefore the missteps should not be impeachable?

The last paragraph was not specifically about Trump. It was a general comment pointing out that any inappropriate action by any President could be used (e.g. blackmail) against him to skew his handling of defense policy. So there would be no need for a distinction between a blow job or most any other misdeed that a President committed in terms of its potential impact on his defense policy.

Ergo, as for your implied comparison between the Trump and Clinton impeachment, they can both be considered a possible impact on defense policy. And, in my opinion, neither amount to an impeachable offense.

Although, clearly, Trump is not ultimately guilty of withholding funds. And he did, on a few occasions, explain why he temporarily did And Clinton, clearly, lied under oath.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Although, clearly, Trump is not ultimately guilty of withholding funds. And he did, on a few occasions, explain why he temporarily did

It's not clear at all, and the testimony conflicts with your statement.

Also the documents that would prove one way or another are being withheld as part of Floridamans obstruction, so just what do you think the documents say?

This is the stuff that people in previous administrations have been indicted for and likely will this time also.

Cooper, during Oct. 23 testimony before the three House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into Trump's Ukraine dealings, also said that she had been told Trump had repeatedly expressed concerns about Ukraine and military aid to the country — weeks before the aid was frozen.

Cooper told impeachment investigators that she and other Pentagon officials had answered questions about the Ukraine assistance in the middle of June — so she was surprised when one of her subordinates told her that a hold had been placed on the funds after an interagency meeting in July 18.

“I got, you know, I got a readout from the meeting — there was discussion in that session about the — about OMB [Office of Management and Budget] saying that they were holding the Congressional Notification related to” Ukraine, Cooper testified, according to the transcript.

Cooper, according to the transcript of her testimony, described the hold as "unusual."

Cooper said that she attended a meeting on July 23, where "this issue" of Trump's "concerns about Ukraine and Ukraine security assistance" came up. She said in that meeting, the president's concerns were "conveyed" by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

Asked by lawmakers if the president was authorized to order that type of hold, Cooper said there were concerns that he wasn't.

"Well, I'm not an expert on the law, but in that meeting immediately deputies began to raise concerns about how this could be done in a legal fashion because there was broad understanding in the meeting that the funding — the State Department funding related to an earmark for Ukraine and that the DOD funding was specific to Ukraine security assistance. So the comments in the room at the deputies' level reflected a sense that there was not an understanding of how this could legally play out. And at that meeting the deputies agreed to look into the legalities and to look at what was possible," she said, according to the transcript.

At the next meeting with national security personnel, she said she told attendees "there were two legally available mechanisms should the President want to stop assistance" — a presidential rescission notice to Congress or for the Defense Department to do “a reprogramming action.”

“But I mentioned that either way, there would need to be a notification to Congress,” she said, according to the transcript.

Asked if that happened, Cooper said, "That did not occur."

In all the relevant inter-agency discussions, Cooper testified, it wasn't just Defense Department officials who believed the aid should flow to Ukraine.

"It was unanimous with the exception of the statements by OMB representatives, and those statements were relaying higher level guidance," she said, according to the transcript.

Investigators have zeroed in on the testimony of several key figures in the Ukraine affair — including Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, and George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state who worked on Ukraine and five other countries — to support the allegation that the Trump administration froze aid intended for Ukraine as part of an attempt to pressure the country to open probes that would benefit Trump politically.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It's not clear at all, and the testimony conflicts with your statement.

I said the he is ultimately not guilty of withholding the funds. The funds were delivered. If there is still some relatively small amount left, there may still be a reason for that. I don't know.