What specific date? Do you mean the same fiscal year in which it wasdelivered?
Why do you asks questions that are publicly available and undisputed Bob? Are you hoping we won't know? Are you commenting on something you know very little about?
Congressional approval of the funds. This is not something a President has blanket rights to ignore. If he does, he should be making a strong and compelling case. Not hiding phone call notes on a secure server.
June 18 – Pentagon announces plans to release some aid
Its gets all shady in these weeks
July 3 – An advisor to Mike Pence was told the OMB had placed a hold on the assistance. So, obviously, that occurred sometime before that
July 18 – Mick Mulvaney said it was at the order of the President
Might have violated the Impoundment Control Act
July 25 – OMB makes the hold official, through Aug 5
July 30 – OMB wants out of this, so appointee Mike Duffey starts signing off on it
Aug 28 – Politico gets the scoop on the story, including the whistleblower report
Most of the funds released Sept 11
Sept 30 – end of the fiscal year. $35 million do not get spent in time to meet the deadline
If you read the transcript you will find that the money was not mentioned or referred to at all. What Zelensky said was that he wanted to purchase more Javelin missiles.
What do you need? Do you need Trump to say the words "quid pro quo"? Mulvaney said they do that all that the time in a press conference. Trump said he would accept assistance from foreign governments in getting dirt on his opponents, more than once. He said it before he was elected, and did it, and he will only do it more if he isn't removed. What else do you need?
Bob the T rump defense has moved on from saying he didn’t commit a crime. Their defense has evolved (oh, who could have predicted?) to as long as the President believes what he is doing in his own self interest is also in the interest of the country, then he can do anything and not be impeached for it.
e.g. If T rump just shot an angry loud old woman in the head to shut her up because she was irritating him, but he also thought that shooting the old biddy would be in the interest of the country, because she was irritating him, and it is not good for a country for its leader to be irritated.
Then this would not be impeachable, according to T tump’s lawyer, nor according to the Trumpublicans in the Senate who are going to let T rump off Scott-free for his current Impeachment infraction.
We all know that this is not a “real” defense. Trump isn’t facing a “real” trial with a “real” jury. If this were in a real court, before a real judge, they would be taking a plea deal. But all they have to do is convince their supporters that it’s plausible enough a defense. But everybody on both sides, both in the government and in the general populace, knows full well that the Republican story would change as dramatically as Ken Starr’s opinion on what is and is not impeachable if Obama had done it. We all know full well that Ken Starr would have made the SAME argument for Obama that he did with Clinton. But since it’s not a Democrat being impeached, now he says exactly the opposite.
I really do not understand the conservative affinity for being lied to. Republicans tell the worst lies sometimes and their base just eats it up. Starr, himself, having said exactly the opposite when it was a Democrat facing impeachment than he is saying now that it’s a Republican, claims that he wasn’t wrong back then when his claim was exactly opposite, he’s just “more right now”. How the hell does that work? How can you say one thing, which is not wrong, and then say literally exactly the opposite thing and it’s “more right”? They are exact opposites! Hell, even if Neil deGrasse Tyson said that scientists weren’t wrong in calling Pluto a planet, they’re just more right no, that at least makes a little sense because “planet” and “protoplanet” are not exact opposites! But if I say it’s red, and then I change that and say it’s not red, exactly one of those claims is wrong! Not right and more right, right and wrong! How does that not drive all well-adjusted people completely insane with outrage?
Wid said, “…How does that not drive all well-adjusted people completely insane with outrage?”
TimB: I would add to that. Not only are the Republicans (actually they are fully Trumpublicans now, Republicans have been fully replaced), not only are they so eaten up with alternate facts, and anything they want to be true is true, no matter how ridiculous, they are also now, infected with a whole new powerful meme, that is only gradually beginning to be spoken: Corruption is Good.
The over-riding values of the Trumpublican Party include things like. Whatever is in T rump’s interest at any given moment is the supreme value.
Corollary values now include Lies are normal and good. They are alternate facts. And Corruption is Good (especially when T rump does it).
I think the fact that the House Dems, as well as the rest of the world, knew before they started the impeachment that it was 100% certain that the Senate wouldn’t convict makes it clear that their motives were 100% political. It is painfully obvious to all but the Trump haters that what the Dems want is only to smear Trump to influence the 2020 election.
They don’t really hope for a conviction, they want only the smear. Anyone who is not blinded by hatred of Trump can see the parallels between Trump asking for a favor and the fake impeachment.
The Dems are motivated by an overwhelming desire for revenge for Trump winning in 2016. Review the Kavanaugh hearings - hate in action. Their concerns for the Constitution and our national security are so obviously fake. If Trump had not asked for a favor, the Dems would have smeared/impeached him for something else with or without a constitutional basis. They decided that before he was sworn in.
This entire ugliness is the biggest abuse of power for political gain in our history and I believe that is the way history will see it. We need a law to make sure a purely partisan impeachment never happens again. Thank goodness this BS will be over soon.
Trump has done a really good job as President. The way he has done it has been very different, ugly at times and often not very Presidential. We enjoy eating sausage but the process of making it is not pleasant to see. He will be re-elected because of the job he has done, not the way he did it. As they have said in the past “It’s the economy __”.
Bob, I don’t know how anyone falls for such things as you have, but the truth is, it’s not a political deal. It is an attempt to impeach the dotard, not smear him, of the crimes he has committed, of which he’s committed a lot more than the articles of impeachment lists and if your idea of the dotard is a really good president, then I would hate to see what you call a bad one. Then again, the Repugs impeached President Clinton for something that should have stayed between him and Hillary. To believe that the dotard is a good president and has done good things for the U.S. is either a delusion, a brainwashing, or both.
That said though, I want to see your list of the things you think the dotard has done wall too.
I think the fact that the House Dems, as well as the rest of the world, knew before they started the impeachment that it was 100% certain that the Senate wouldn’t convict makes it clear that their motives were 100% political.
No, it doesn't. It makes it 100% clear that Republicans are going to protect each other over the interest of the country, but Democrats are still willing to do their duty. Pelosi didn't jump into this with glee. She held it off as long as she could. She squashed cheering by Democrats in the House when it was announced. I, instead, think that your readiness to dismiss what was determined by the Government Accountability Office to be illegal as simply partisan politics is 100% political.
The president did wrong. He broke the law. But that’s nowhere near the worst of it. He threatened the safety and security of one of our allies and used taxpayer money, OUR money, to try to extort personal favors from a foreign government. And not just regular personal favors, personal favors to keep him in power. Can you really not look at that and see corruption? Is this really how you think the government should, or regularly does run? This is not normal. This is not business as usual. And if Obama had done it the likes of you would not be defending it.
Really good interview here, with an historian, and a link to a daily diary about this process. I think she hits it on the head when she describes how she reacted to the House Repubs who weren’t just making arguments, but deliberately destroying truth, making arguments that came right out to 4-Chan or wherever.
Pelosi tried to hold back on calls for Impeachment. Until she could hold back no more, because Don John’s criminal act in trying to effect the next election, made it impossible to do nothing. Impeachment was elicited. It’s not like there was a viable choice as to whether to initiate it, once the related information became public. The Dems knew that T rump could not be removed from office (with the Trumpublicans controlling the Senate). So the best they could do was to Impeach in order to help the truth come out re: what T rump had done, and was continuing to do.
The Dems are most concerned with what T rump is doing and will do to cheat in the 2020 election. At least a few more Americans know now, for sure, that T rump has and will continue to do anything he wishes in order to win the 2020 election by any dirty means necessary. We know now that the Trumpublicans (formerly known as Republicans) are flat out colluders with the White House. We know that they are willing to take an oath and to immediately violate that oath, for their master.
I wonder, Bob, could you tell me how we are going to prevent T rump from using his new power (of indisputably being above any law) to rig the 2020 election? How, Bob? Or is that really what you secretly want? For T rump to steal the 2020 election?
Write4U: ” the money which was approved to be delivered at a specific date was mysteriously placed on hold”.
Bob said : What specific date? Do you mean the same fiscal year in which it was delivered?
If you read the transcript you will find that the money was not mentioned or referred to at all. What Zelensky said was that he wanted to purchase more Javelin missiles.
If the money was not promised on a date certain, then there would be no question of “holding up” payment. Can you honestly imagine that 400 million dollars worth of foreign aid is approved by congress but without a release and delivery date?
The day this money was expected to be delivered passed without delivery. Do you honestly believe no one was curious what happened to 400 millon dollars that was expected on a date certain. No phone calls with : “we were expecting delivery today , what happened?”
We’re not talking about chump change here. There was a delivery date attached to the approval by congress, if only for bookkeeping purposes, of that I am certain.
I was a bookkeeper of federally funded programs and everything is controlled, especially the recording of dates of payments and receipts of funds.
The Trumpublicans in the Senate are coming up with a plan to have this Impeachment over with on Wednesday. So less than 5 days from now.
The only concession the Dems could get was to delay the final vote to Wednesday (after the Tues night SOTU). They were able to do this by promising to use their remaining power of presenting amendment votes, until the time had passed. McConnell gave in that little bit (scheduling to end on Wed), so the Senators won’t have to actually sit thru ceaseless amendment proposals.
So our newly established DOTUS, Don John, will not be able to officially howl about the Impeachment being over during the SOTU.
Did anyone catch the Senator from Hawaii after the vote to not call witnesses? She and the other Dems are already looking for something to impeach him on again. They already know he will win in November.
You all should thank me for posting the Republican truth. Without my posts to rail against and release your frustration I fear some of you might explode.
Thanks Bob. It’s good to know you have found a useful function.
If DOTUS Don John wins the next election, he will have cheated and used his new dictatorial powers, to do so. So he had better cheat and make sure he wins back the House, or of course, he could be impeached again. (tho he still could not be removed from office). He is not going to stop breaking laws, especially now that he is indubitably above the law.
Sree, truth does not work that way and to say it does is B.S. Either one did harm or they did not and the truth is, the dotard committed crimes which he should be charged for and removed from office, not have a circus for a trial. One cannot twist facts and say they are “alternate facts”. There is no such things as “alternate facts”. If the dotard did shoot someone on the street would you call that not the truth when he shot the person in front of other people? He committed a crime right in front of everyone and he committed one on the phone to the Ukraine. It is denying the facts to say differently and that is what the Repugs are doing- denying facts, truth, justice, democracy, and the Constitution itself, in favour of their favour dictator- the dotard.
Mriana, do you know that Trump doesn’t drink? Imagine that! What kind of a guy doesn’t drink when practically every man in America has a Manhattan when he gets home from work? His wife fixes him a drink before dinner. But Trump doesn’t drink!