Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Xcalibur254
I never knew so many people cared about Ukraine so much. Where we're all of you when Russia took control of Crimeria and the East Half of Ukraine under Obama's watch. You were criticizing him for his lack of lethal aid then, Right?

....or was Ukraine too full of Corruption back then to do that?

My memory is a little fuzzy

Perhaps Obama meant more than just the missile defense shield when he told Medvedev he could be more flexible.

Maybe he meant he could be more flexible with regard to the corrupt money pipeline through Ukraine.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You actually think they're going to impeach him for that? Even though that's not one of the charges that was voted on?

It must suck to be so wired up about things like that.

it's not like Trump authorized to the sale of 50 caliber guns to the Sinola cartel in Mexico? Then you might have something

FYI Reminder from November 2019

Prosecutor Durham investigates the possibility of criminals working at the top levels of the Pentagon.

saraacarter.com...

Keep that in mind when you hear the anti-Trump media say, "Even the Pentagon was concerned about the Withholding of $$$$ for ____________."

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

You guys gave the Democrats the House to only work on one project that they've been working on for the past 3 years and only halfway completed that task

Actually, there are a stack of bills passed by the house waiting on the Do Nothing GOP in the Senate to act.
But don't let me put facts in the way of your delusions, please carry on.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Halfswede

It is up to a legal case to determine whether it actually violated the impound control act vs potentially

Would you consider a Senate Impeachment Trial a good enough legal case to decide this?

No, for two reasons. First is that it was not one of the articles of impeachment. That ship has sailed... for now. Second, an impeachment trial is inherently a criminal trial. Violation of the Impound Control Act--or rather if there was a violation--is something that would be heard in a federal court as a civil hearing. In fact, that is exactly how past violations of the statute have been resolved. The President would argue that as the chief executive, he had the sole Constitutional authority regarding foreign affairs, and that the withholding of foreign aid falls within his purview. Arguably, the Act was not meant to bind the President on issue of foreign affairs, and even if it did, an act of legislation does not trump (no pun intended) the Constitutional Authority vested in the President.

a reply to: CitizenZero

In other words, the notion that Trump wanted to get political dirt on Biden is fabricated from thin air.

Testimony says otherwise, LesMis.

But the only one who does know Trump's motives—Trump himself—has been consistent about Ukraine corruption and the EU's lack of help.

Yes, LesMis, Trump has been very consistent that his concern for supposed "corruption" was (his political opponent) Biden's supposed corruption, and very little other corruption.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
We all know from the other thread on here what was going on in Ukraine

The evidence being gathered will be used in the Impeachment Trial to demonstrate that President Trump was justified in delaying Military aid. Biden / Pelosi / Kerry are just 3 U.S. families, along with the DNC, who benefited (via kick-backs and favors) from the aid.

We'll see if leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer agree to a FAIR TRIAL that includes the evidence.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

You guys gave the Democrats the House to only work on one project that they've been working on for the past 3 years and only halfway completed that task

Actually, there are a stack of bills passed by the house waiting on the Do Nothing GOP in the Senate to act.
But don't let me put facts in the way of your delusions, please carry on.

Bills need to be able to pass both parts of Congress. A Real House would take that into account when passing things on their side.

Delusions........ lol.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

You guys gave the Democrats the House to only work on one project that they've been working on for the past 3 years and only halfway completed that task

Actually, there are a stack of bills passed by the house waiting on the Do Nothing GOP in the Senate to act.
But don't let me put facts in the way of your delusions, please carry on.

What bills ?
You have to present facts before one can decide.
And there are always bills waiting to be passed in Congress since , well , forever...
Nothing new....

a reply to: pavil

I've been pretty vocal about Ukraine since 2014. I did think Obama should have sent more than logistical support to the Ukrainian government. Unfortunately the GOP controlled Congress were afraid to anger Russia.

He never asked for ''Joe Biden'' to be investigated.
He asked that the situation with the fired prosecutor be looked into.

Its not like he hired a law firm to create a fake dossier and submitted it to the FBI to start a year long investigation...

Get over it.. he WON the ELECTION

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: tanstaafl

I have heard talk about the reason for the delay was that there might be additional charges added to the list. What do you think about that possiblity?

The same thing that I think about the current situation. It is all pure TDS driven BS.

The President had the authority to do it. Period.

Quid Pro Quos happen all the time with foreign relations. Period.

The President, never, not once, said anything about Biden except with respect to Burisma and the corruption going on during the 2016 election. He never said anything whatsoever to do with the upcoming 2020 election.

Anyone who believes that Trump has even a itty bitty widdle bit of concern about Biden as a potential 'opponent' in the 2020 election is just dumb. Biden would collapse into a babbling idiot during any serious debate against Trump.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: shooterbrody

So in your understanding an impeachment trial WOULD be a legal trial on these issues.

No. You haven't been paying attention.

Impeachment is not a legal process, it is purely a political process defined by the Constitution.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: Middleoftheroad
Actually, there are a stack of bills passed by the house waiting on the Do Nothing GOP in the Senate to act.
But don't let me put facts in the way of your delusions, please carry on.

You mean all of those purely dem supported socialist/communist crap-bills that no sane person would ever vote for, that they passed just for show, knowing they had no chance in hell of even getting to the floor of the senate?

Those bills?

Ugh. Hope the facts don't hurt too much when they collide with your face at 1000 mph.

a reply to: timequake

I think I see what you are saying here. It would be a civil case and not a criminal case. And in a civil case, should this be tried, the question that would arise would be not so much the legality of the presidents actions but more the legality and scope of the Act itself as it was put in place to curb the presidents authority?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Biden would collapse into a babbling idiot during any serious debate against Trump.

I don't doubt this at all. Biden can hardly even give a simple speech without falling all over himself.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Actually, I have. It's who I am paying attention to. I have received several replies on that question and some say yes and some say no. The best, I think, was from ''timequake'' two replies up from this one.

Not being a lawyer I am unaware of the legal nuisances however we have seen many times when congressional approved aid/funds was held up and it was also reported that a hold on the funds was typical. In fact, the Trump administration has already held back foreign aid to Pakistan under these conditions. In September it withheld $255m (£188m) in military aid to the country, precisely by claiming it was not meeting its counter-terrorism obligations.
www.bbc.com...
I am sure if google wasn't programmed to hate President Trump you could find instances where Obama and other President's put a temporary freeze on aid.

As far as the rationale, do you remember how corrupt Ukraine is, wouldn't that obviously be the rationale?
Didn't Biden say he wasn't going to give the "congressional approved" Billion dollars to the Ukrainian government if they didn't fire the prosecutor. If that money was congressionally approved then that threat would have been illegal, right?
I did not see that issue raised. The article in the OP and the argument that what President Trump did is illegal is very weak and will go nowhere just like the impeachment.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Interesting....

The documents reveal growing concern from Pentagon officials that the hold would violate the Impoundment Control Act, which requires the executive branch to spend money as appropriated by Congress, and that the necessary steps to avoid this result weren’t being taken. Those steps would include notifying Congress that the funding was being held or shifted elsewhere, a step that was never taken. The emails also show that no rationale was ever given for why the hold was put in place or why it was eventually lifted.

budget.house.gov...

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: CitizenZero

In other words, the notion that Trump wanted to get political dirt on Biden is fabricated from thin air.

Testimony says otherwise, LesMis.

But the only one who does know Trump's motives—Trump himself—has been consistent about Ukraine corruption and the EU's lack of help.

Yes, LesMis, Trump has been very consistent that his concern for supposed "corruption" was (his political opponent) Biden's supposed corruption, and very little other corruption.

Broadway fan?

Testimony says it was all presumed, Cats.

I don’t know, Cats, I personally am unable to name an act of Ukrainian corruption off the top of my head even though I know it’s one of the most corrupt places on the planet.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Where the law comes in is that the funds, that have been appropriated by Congress, need to be spent before the end of the fiscal year. The US' fiscal year ends on September 30th.