It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FInally, a crime Trump is guilty of.....maybe.

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 07:23 AM
link   
www.breitbart.com...


“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA,” it concluded.


Alright. We all know what happened, nobody in the white house denies this. The reason is up for discussion, but the reason is irrelevant. Trump is in charge, He ordered this, and apparently, it's not kosher. So now we have a situation.

Is this an impeachable offence? What are the ramifications of committing a crime of this magnitude? Unless the penalty is removal from office, the problem isn't one Trump needs to be worried about. Because this is the article of impeachment in a nutshell. (The other one, not the "being orange and mean" one).

The trial is about to start, and the left is almost ready to start putting a case together, since their initial one sucked so badly that they were embarrassed to bring it to the senate for almost a month. Is this the crescendo? Or are we also supposed to buy into what Parnes has to say. The guy who is being investigated for lying and making false statements. Sounds like an Avanatti type of guy. Well played leftovers. I think you finally got him.

so to reiterate the initial question, what is the penalty for this crime?




posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

...yawn...

They can't impeach in the house and then bring forward a completely different case in the senate that was never approved of and voted on by the house. I'm sure they'll use this and any other nonsense during the next impeachment hearing.

Yes that's right, I fully expect Trump to not only be the third President to face impeachment, but the first to face multiple impeachments.


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I mean... good luck with that. It was a delay of what? A couple weeks? He didn't cancel it. He didn't redirect the funds to himself or another project. They got paid. Trump's admin will say they needed to verify they weren't handing money to corrupt govt officials.


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 07:40 AM
link   
They don’t even know if he actually broke a law.

Hell it’s not even a law . The funding came from a amendment to the Ukraine freedom act of 2014 .

Which is a treaty It only takes the Senate to approve a treaty.

If it was a law they would need the house of representatives .

Here’s the kicker, presidential authority on dispersing foreign funding hasn’t ever been challenged under the ICA.


L. & PUB. POL'Y 131 (1982) (arguing that, under certain circumstances, President may impound appropriations for foreign relations). Several commentators and Presidents have argued that there is a constitutional exception to the Principle ofAppropriation Expenditure in the area of foreign relations. This exception is said to derive from the Commander-in-Chief clause, U.S. CONST. art. 2, § 2, and the President's broad authority in overseeing foreign affairs. Courts have not yet addressed this issue.
In addition, there may be other areas where the President has an inherent Article II power to reduce expenditures. For example, the President arguably may choose to spend less than the full amount appropriat- ed for White House staff. Or the President could theoretically reduce court and prison expenditures by a widespread exercise of his pardon power. Neither of these issues apprear to have been litigated.


Yale Law Journal


+9 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 07:44 AM
link   
There is no penalty for this 'law'. There are several presidents who have officially broken it and been called out by the GAO, and the penalty has been to sue for release of funds. Since he already released the funds it is moot. It appears there is great divide as to whether even that counts as breaking the law since he released them before the window allotted (45 days) anyway.

The gist is, this is not even the level of campaign finance violations that typically end in a small fine. This is mattress tag level crime, much less impeachment-level.



No potential criminal penalties are associated with violating the Impoundment Control Act, meaning there will be no prosecution of officials for the violation. The GAO has found at least a half-dozen violations of the Impoundment Control Act in the past, including in previous administrations.


Washington Post
edit on 17-1-2020 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

I appreciate the leg work you put in for all the legal aspects. I followed your threads and posts on this, but I can't find anything regarding the penalty. It seems the leftovers are hanging their hopes and dreams on this, so I need to know if it's an impeach and remove type of crime, or more of a process crime that might get a stern talking to.

Campaign finance violations have a history of actions taken, usually just fines payed, and little to nothing else. So is this along those lines, worse, not as bad? I honestly don't know.
edit on 17-1-2020 by network dude because: fixed error



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede



No potential criminal penalties are associated with violating the Impoundment Control Act, meaning there will be no prosecution of officials for the violation. The GAO has found at least a half-dozen violations of the Impoundment Control Act in the past, including in previous administrations.


Washington Post



Thanks for that. It seems by that standard, it's much less sinister than it sounded. Perhaps a 15 minute time out, or only one scoop of ice cream at dinner.


+8 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Trump should get "the chair", negate every one of his bills that he's signed, abolish every treaty and deal he's made, re-do the calendar, and seat Hillary as Queen of America.

Everyone who got a raise or made money the past 3 years, has to give it back.

Taxes will be retroactive.

Everyone who got a job the past 3 years is immediately fired.

We need to tear down the wall and ship illegals into the country.

Lower the stock market and force millions to lose billions of dollars.

And just for good measure, everyone has to turn in their guns and get crappy healthcare.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

If we go back to the English origins of impeachment, withholding allocated funds has been used as justification for impeachment.


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

If we go back even further, I think we are even allowed to poke him in the public square with pointy sticks!




posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

If we go back to the English origins of impeachment, withholding allocated funds has been used as justification for impeachment.


Why would we want to regress backwards?

Oh yeah...Democrat agenda...

Edit: Einstein did not kill hisself...and neither did

Epstein





edit on 17-1-2020 by DietWoke because: Remaining original



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: DietWoke

From other things I have read. Most American law at the time of the countries founding was based on English law. It's not regression it's the basis.

And the ICA was originally enacted from the Nixon era. To curtail a Presidents overreach. Which is a good thing. If we don't limit a Presidents power. Then we run into situations where a President can just do whatever he wants and faces no repercussions.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Why would we do that though?

The concept of impeachment started in England in the 14th century. This is what our Founding Fathers based the Impeachment Clause around.

To our Framers withholding allocated funds could be considered a high crime. The Supreme Court has stated that archaic terms like "high crimes and misdemeanors" should be interpreted as they would've been used by our Founding Fathers.

So my point is relevant.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede


No potential criminal penalties are associated with violating the Impoundment Control Act, meaning there will be no prosecution of officials for the violation. The GAO has found at least a half-dozen violations of the Impoundment Control Act in the past, including in previous administrations.


Washington Post

But if we look back 600 years ago we could impeach him for this! dRUUUMPFFFF NOOOO



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

Why would we do that though?

The concept of impeachment started in England in the 14th century. This is what our Founding Fathers based the Impeachment Clause around.

To our Framers withholding allocated funds could be considered a high crime. The Supreme Court has stated that archaic terms like "high crimes and misdemeanors" should be interpreted as they would've been used by our Founding Fathers.

So my point is relevant.


No.

Not unless you can cite and source withholding funds as a high crime.

Right now you're just making things up.

I mean, so can I.

Our Founding Fathers would have called what Trump did, "Totes cool and rad".



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

Why would we do that though?

The concept of impeachment started in England in the 14th century. This is what our Founding Fathers based the Impeachment Clause around.

To our Framers withholding allocated funds could be considered a high crime. The Supreme Court has stated that archaic terms like "high crimes and misdemeanors" should be interpreted as they would've been used by our Founding Fathers.

So my point is relevant.


If you read the notes the founders used to add the impeachment clause, they are almost identical to what Trump has done. It is almost as the impeachment clause was written specifically for Trump and these set of actions.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xcalibur254

If we go back even further, I think we are even allowed to poke him in the public square with pointy sticks!






posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580
A president can do whatever they want?? Democrats are the party that let a POTUS do exactly what he wanted with an assassination drone strike list with American citizens on it who were denied due process under the fifth amendment.

I would be careful about any Democrat president and their congress, considering the past powers they have openly embraced and supported.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
Is this an impeachable offence? What are the ramifications of committing a crime of this magnitude?


Both of those details are up to Congress. Censure is an option instead of impeachment if they feel this is not a high crime or misdemeanor.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Non use. Its also established that once ignored repetitiously a law is unenforceable.

If folks want to impeach Trump over this they needed to do the same to prior administrations. Unfortunately that ship sailed.

The has to be consistency or there is no rule of law



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join