One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
I don't want Trump removed from office, whether his trial is fair or not
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
Jan 25, 2020 15:24:39   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
rumitoid wrote:
First, it is against the law of Congressional distribution of funds to withhold them for any reason. Second, it appears to violate campaign laws to bribe a foreign government to find dirt on a political rival. Third, then the attempt to conceal evidence and witnesses on those two points.

Three strikes, you're out, bubba. Wrong on all counts.

TJ was the first POTUS to withhold appropriated funds. Congress approved fifty grand for some gunboats being built down in Loozy Ann. TJ told congress, "the sum of fifty thousand dollars appropriated by Congress for providing gun boats remains unexpended. The favorable and peaceable turn of affairs on the Mississippi rendered an immediate execution of that law unnecessary." In keeping with his efforts to reduce the size of the debt, he left the funds for the ships unspent for over a year. Many presidents down the line have done similar things.

Yer second point sucks. Plugs Biden rivals no one but himself. He is his own worst political adversary. In any case, president Trump did not bribe Ukraine for any reason, he merely asked president Zelenski to look into corruption that directly threatened US national security, and since Biden & Son were right in the middle of it, the name "Biden" came up.

1 - 2 - 3. Why would the president "attempt to conceal evidence and witnesses" to events that never happened? Don't forget that throughout that cluster phuque in the HOR, the maniacal PSN mobsters in control of ejaculations and orgasms were very picky about who they chose to join in and what sex toys they brought to the game.


.





| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 16:07:22   #
son of witless
 
rumitoid wrote:
Thank you for a respectable debate: was there expected quid pro quo in Jefferson's delay to intimate or attack a political rival or just a reasonable delay, due to certain incompetence; it seems the latter. A distinctively different case.


Hold up, hold up. You are jumping to your second and third points and before we ' move on ', do you or do you not concede my point under the Impoundment Claus ?

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 16:10:44   #
son of witless
 
lindajoy wrote:
Temporary suspending the funds approved by Congress is allowed under the impoundment clause.. Its permanently refusing funds approved that the President will find himself before the Supreme Court for their consideration of the issue..Trump suspended funding for Pakistan for not adhering to terrorist actions or something like that and was not challenged on it..

The president's ability to indefinitely reject congressionally approved spending was thus removed later as a result of your case cited. Congress holds the purse strings and the President can reject or approve.. If he rejects they have to work through it before finding is giving..

Do you know four of the managers appointed on this impeachment panel by Pels voted against funding for Ukraine??

Seven "House Managers" to present the impeachment articles against President Trump. Part of the accusations are that he withheld aid from Ukraine. Four of the seven managers voted AGAINST authorizing the aid in question.
https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/01/24/771546/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=87a4a1f2dae11109ced443942bc1
Temporary suspending the funds approved by Congres... (show quote)


I heard something to the effect of the managers. Thank you for jumping in. I like trying to put historical precedents into my discussions when I can find them and I appreciate your input.

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 17:00:19   #
rumitoid
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Three strikes, you're out, bubba. Wrong on all counts.

TJ was the first POTUS to withhold appropriated funds. Congress approved fifty grand for some gunboats being built down in Loozy Ann. TJ told congress, "the sum of fifty thousand dollars appropriated by Congress for providing gun boats remains unexpended. The favorable and peaceable turn of affairs on the Mississippi rendered an immediate execution of that law unnecessary." In keeping with his efforts to reduce the size of the debt, he left the funds for the ships unspent for over a year. Many presidents down the line have done similar things.

Yer second point sucks. Plugs Biden rivals no one but himself. He is his own worst political adversary. In any case, president Trump did not bribe Ukraine for any reason, he merely asked president Zelenski to look into corruption that directly threatened US national security, and since Biden & Son were right in the middle of it, the name "Biden" came up.

1 - 2 - 3. Why would the president "attempt to conceal evidence and witnesses" to events that never happened? Don't forget that throughout that cluster phuque in the HOR, the maniacal PSN mobsters in control of ejaculations and orgasms were very picky about who they chose to join in and what sex toys they brought to the game.


.
Three strikes, you're out, bubba. Wrong on all cou... (show quote)


You rest my case, thank you. There was nothing wrong with funding the Ukraine, no reason to withhold funds...except Trump's need to politically discredit an opponent. That is blatant. Biden's attempt to remove Viktor Shokin was just. Sources ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim.

It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.

Shokin's inaction prompted international calls for his ouster and ultimately resulted in his removal by Ukraine's parliament.

Without pressure from Joe Biden, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.

"Civil society organizations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation," Kaleniuk said, "but no one would have cared if there had not been voices from outside this country calling on him to go."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 17:02:30   #
rumitoid
 
son of witless wrote:
Hold up, hold up. You are jumping to your second and third points and before we ' move on ', do you or do you not concede my point under the Impoundment Claus ?


Because the first point you defend is BS.

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 17:27:18   #
elledee
 
PeterS wrote:
Blackmail is an impeachable offense. It doesn't have to be criminal to be impeachable. The man is unqualified to be president and worse, he is destroying the office that he holds. The people of this country are stupid enough to reelect him which makes impeachment an even more important tool to cleanse the office of the filth now in it.


where were you when they reelected clinton and ovomit..... these two make Trump look like a saint

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 18:11:26   #
son of witless
 
rumitoid wrote:
Because the first point you defend is BS.


What ? You are still saying that your statement " First, it is against the law of Congressional distribution of funds to withhold them for any reason. " is true ? I just gave you the example of Thomas Jefferson, and I pointed out that President Trump only delayed the funds to the Ukraine.

How can I possibly be wrong ?

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 18:31:36   #
rumitoid
 
son of witless wrote:
What ? You are still saying that your statement " First, it is against the law of Congressional distribution of funds to withhold them for any reason. " is true ? I just gave you the example of Thomas Jefferson, and I pointed out that President Trump only delayed the funds to the Ukraine.

How can I possibly be wrong ?


Jefferson did so because of egregious over payment, not for political advantage, as did Trump.

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 18:50:38   #
son of witless
 
rumitoid wrote:
Jefferson did so because of egregious over payment, not for political advantage, as did Trump.


The political advantage is a separate issue. You said for any reason. Did you forget your own words ?????

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 19:08:41   #
jack sequim wa Loc: Redding, CA
 
lindajoy wrote:
Hello Jack,
Nice to see you... If BO, his name would never be there to begin with.. Although I do recall some 22 senate members wanted to initiate impeachment they couldn’t garner the support of others....

Agree on the requirement for all to read, its comprehension that gets most of them!!




Good to read your post and hope all is well for you.
Did you happen to see the 26 Attorney General's from 26 different states go public? The Attorney General's went through the "Transcript " word for word and when they reviewed it with the constitution, they came to the conclusion that Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and others drafted a unconstitutional articles of impeachment and all signed a demand the Senate "instantly " stop this circus.
Another must view by every leftist debating the impeachment.

http://youtu.be/Alm3dZqIgjs

Jack

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 19:11:05   #
jack sequim wa Loc: Redding, CA
 
rumitoid wrote:
Jefferson did so because of egregious over payment, not for political advantage, as did Trump.




This refutes every one of your points Rumy.

This addreses 26 Attorney general's from 26 states comparing the articles of impeachment to the constitution.

http://youtu.be/Alm3dZqIgjs

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 19:31:34   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
son of witless wrote:
I heard something to the effect of the managers. Thank you for jumping in. I like trying to put historical precedents into my discussions when I can find them and I appreciate your input.


Your welcome, son~

An interesting topic no doubt and one with vast varying reasoning.. All have merit since the law is void of a clear and concise definition regarding the supposed charges levied against President Trump.. I can say disagreeing on a decision does not rise to the level of impeachment.....

As blade pointed out many a President has withheld funds while things got resolved over it..

Unlike BO who tried to send out 225 million to Pakistan the last hours before exiting our Oval office, even after Congress had said no~~ Where was the rage over it?? Thank God Trump stopped it!!!

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 19:41:43   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
jack sequim wa wrote:
This refutes every one of your points Rumy.

This addreses 26 Attorney general's from 26 states comparing the articles of impeachment to the constitution.

http://youtu.be/Alm3dZqIgjs


I read an article on this too yesterday..Good info in it too~~~

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 19:47:41   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
jack sequim wa wrote:
Good to read your post and hope all is well for you.
Did you happen to see the 26 Attorney General's from 26 different states go public? The Attorney General's went through the "Transcript " word for word and when they reviewed it with the constitution, they came to the conclusion that Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and others drafted a unconstitutional articles of impeachment and all signed a demand the Senate "instantly " stop this circus.
Another must view by every leftist debating the impeachment.

http://youtu.be/Alm3dZqIgjs

Jack
Good to read your post and hope all is well for yo... (show quote)


Yes, Jack I did... I read it yesterday and had to agree it certainly did address point for point the level in Impeachment consideration... Nothing implied or insinuated by the unbiased Schiff changes the reality of intent based on lawful Requirements needed...

Any doubt Federalist # 65 establishes a guideline of intent as Blade pointed out..👍

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 20:20:36   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
rumitoid wrote:
You rest my case, thank you. There was nothing wrong with funding the Ukraine, no reason to withhold funds...except Trump's need to politically discredit an opponent. That is blatant. Biden's attempt to remove Viktor Shokin was just. Sources ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim.

It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.

Shokin's inaction prompted international calls for his ouster and ultimately resulted in his removal by Ukraine's parliament.

Without pressure from Joe Biden, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.

"Civil society organizations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation," Kaleniuk said, "but no one would have cared if there had not been voices from outside this country calling on him to go."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/
You rest my case, thank you. There was nothing wro... (show quote)
USAtoday does not present cases. USAtoday does not argue cases. USAtoday promulgates progressive partisan propaganda.

I had to pull this one out and take a look at it. Y'all check it out:

"except Trump's need to politically discredit an opponent.

Hmm! Interesting. Something important has been ignored here. Whatever could it be?


.



| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2020 IDF International Technologies, Inc.