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: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Bring back duels and lets get this # over with already.




posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
Bring back duels and lets get this # over with already.


Twitter insults at 10 paces.



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

Trump would dominate the noobs, he's got some sort of weird homefield advantage on twitter.

I feel like single shot flint lock would be more appealing for us spectators.

^__^

Maybe a bracket system where they all have to duel.





edit on 17-1-2020 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
Maybe a bracket system where they all have to duel.


I'd pay big, big money for that.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 09:22 AM
link   
What a joke. There was no crime committed. The President can withhold the funds provided he notifies Congress within 45 days. He held them for what, six days? He could have held them for 44 days and released them.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Did you only read that part of what I wrote?



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 09:41 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.


Then you should keep in mind how the founding fathers would have viewed a coup on a sitting President.

It would have been treated as a high crime of insurrection, mutinous sedition and or treason.

Punishable by death.

I should add that "I can't recall" would not fly in court back then.

Or any of the actions - or slowwalking/purposeful delay of actions would also not be tolerated.

edit on 17-1-2020 by Notoneofyou because: (no reason given)

I believe breach of duty, or delinquency of duty would be enough.
edit on 17-1-2020 by Notoneofyou because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Trump upset the kickbacks to the Democrats, IMF and others in the loop of graft and corruption. It was a crime in the interest of capitalism and the right of every politician to squeeze out as much as they can for their own interests.

Now as if this crime of Trumps is bad enough to get him removed will depend on just how many Republicans are involved with the kick back scheme and do not want to give up there capitalistic right to screw the economy.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

But wasnt the funds released on time??



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: cognizant420

There's supposedly a 45 day maximum limit on delay of funds before its illegal.

Trump was well within this.

However , I think he was supposed to file a form saying why.
edit on 17-1-2020 by Notoneofyou because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Leave Trump alone, he has been punished enough for an innocent man.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: cognizant420

I'm not entirely sure about the law cited by the GAO, but there was around $30 million that was not able to be allocated by the end of the fiscal year because of the delay, which is against the law.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 10:46 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.


Well, Trump has already been impeached, so that isn't really a factor. Now, does this penalty mean he should be removed? Is there any precedent for this? And most importantly, is this how our nation is going to be government from this point forward?

Even if a democrat is in office, impeachment will be the first option to solve any issues.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: cognizant420

I'm not entirely sure about the law cited by the GAO, but there was around $30 million that was not able to be allocated by the end of the fiscal year because of the delay, which is against the law.


can you cite the law you are referring to?



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
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.


There ya go again: being logical, reasonable, accurate, sensible, patriotic, honorable, legal, anti-corruption, honest, . . .

That's obviously not any kind of way to win DIMRAT friends.

LOLOLOLOL.

May God have mercy on our beleaguered Republic desperately trying to survive Marxist globalist satanic agents within in high places of arrogant power-mongering, greed, corruptocratism, tyrannical authoritarianism, etc.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude



Is this an impeachable offence? What are the ramifications of committing a crime of this magnitude?


NO

Why wasn't this an issue with Obama?

Why Trump? Because he's anti-establishment.

MSM and the Democrats hate him and have brainwashed millions of people to do likewise.

Nevertheless, if a mere GAO finding is sufficient to justify impeachment, then President Barack Obama ought to have been impeached at least seven times


...each of the following cases in which the GAO found that the Obama administration had violated federal law.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and United States Secret Service (USSS) were found to have violated section 503 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, and the Antideficiency Act, in 2009 after the Secret Service reported that it had overspent on candidate protection in 2008 by $5,100,000, and used money from another program to cover the shortfall. DHS failed to notify Congress 15 days in advance of the “reprogramming.”

The Department of the Treasury was found to have violated the Antideficiency Act in 2014 when it used the voluntary services of four individuals. “Treasury did not appoint any of the individuals to federal employment, nor did any individual qualify as a student who may, under certain circumstances, perform voluntary service,” the GAO found, adding that there was no emergency that might have justified using the individuals to perform several months of work without receiving pay.

The Department of Defense was found to have violated the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014 and the Antideficiency Act in the infamous Bowe Bergdahl swap, when President Barack Obama traded five high-level Taliban detainees for a U.S. Army deserter. The administration transferred the five Taliban from Guantanamo Bay without notifying relevant congressional committees 30 days in advance, as required by law. Republicans complained; Democrats were silent.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development was found to have violated the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, and the Antideficiency Act in 2014 when the deputy secretary of the department sent an email to “friends and colleagues” asking them to lobby the Senate in favor of a bill appropriating money to the department, and against amendments offered by Republican Senators.

The Environmental Protection Agency was found to have violated “publicity or propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions” in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act and the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act in 2015 by using some of the department’s social media accounts in rule-making for the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) regulations (which have since been repealed under the Trump administration).

Two officials in the Department of Housing and Urban Development were found in 2016 to have violated Section 713 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act by attempting to prevent a regional director within the agency from being interviewed by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. (Notably, the GAO reversed its earlier decision that the department’s general counsel had not violated the law once it was presented with more evidence.)

The Federal Maritime Commission was found to have violated Section 711 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, as well as the Antideficiency Act, in 2016 when it failed to notify the relevant Senate and House committees that it had spent more than $5,000 to furnish and redecorate the office of its former director in 2010. (The total amount spent was $12,084 over three years, as noted by the GAO in a footnote reference to an inspector general’s report on the excessive expenditures.)

www.breitbart.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Crap work and deadline = throw it over the fence. Democrats threw this pile of excrement over the fence and then doused it with some bottom shelf deodorizer.

When people do this a couple of things happen. One, the work gets thrown in the trash. Two, they are forever shamed, along with anyone else who helped them prepare it and chunk it over.

The only quality work the Democrats did in all this was pick out expensive pens.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Alan Dershowitz went on Sean Hannity. He is giving the GAO a solid F on their most recent paper:

"The GOA got it exactly backwards. Here’s what they said. The law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities to those Congress has enacted into law. It’s exactly the opposite. The Constitution does not allow Congress to substitute its own priorities for the foreign policies of the President.”



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Rereading through things, it is the ICA to which I was referring.


With the hold lifted, McCusker’s team worked fast to get the money out the door, but, in the end, $35.2 million of the Ukraine funding lapsed and required new congressional legislation to make it available again.

Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

Rereading through things, it is the ICA to which I was referring.


With the hold lifted, McCusker’s team worked fast to get the money out the door, but, in the end, $35.2 million of the Ukraine funding lapsed and required new congressional legislation to make it available again.

Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns



The next question is, has this ever happened before, and who was impeached for it.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join