*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7119
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4760 on: January 18, 2020, 11:53:18 PM »
In other news, Trump officially broke the law.

Trump Broke The Law In Freezing Ukraine Funds, Watchdog Report Concludes https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796806517/trump-broke-the-law-in-freezing-ukraine-funds-watchdog-report-concludes?sc=18&f=1001

The GAO also released a report that determined Obama broke the law. Do you remember what happened? Nothing at all. The GAO is meaningless. The Democrats don't care about the GAO and the Republicans don't care about the GAO.

Oh?  What did Obama do?  ( I missed that report)

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/215787-obama-rejects-report-that-bergdahl-swap-was-illegal

The GAO told Obama what he did was illegal and Obama responded by saying "no".

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1565
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4761 on: January 19, 2020, 12:10:19 AM »
Counties don't vote! People vote!
Given that we're talking about US presidential elections, you're obviously wrong. States vote.

No, people do still vote in presidential elections; they just don't directly decide the winner. Measuring votes by county, however, is entirely arbitrary.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5221
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4762 on: January 19, 2020, 12:11:50 AM »
In other news, Trump officially broke the law.

Trump Broke The Law In Freezing Ukraine Funds, Watchdog Report Concludes https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796806517/trump-broke-the-law-in-freezing-ukraine-funds-watchdog-report-concludes?sc=18&f=1001

The GAO also released a report that determined Obama broke the law. Do you remember what happened? Nothing at all. The GAO is meaningless. The Democrats don't care about the GAO and the Republicans don't care about the GAO.

Oh?  What did Obama do?  ( I missed that report)

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/215787-obama-rejects-report-that-bergdahl-swap-was-illegal

The GAO told Obama what he did was illegal and Obama responded by saying "no".
Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue. 

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 761
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4763 on: January 19, 2020, 02:35:52 AM »
In other news, Trump officially broke the law.

Trump Broke The Law In Freezing Ukraine Funds, Watchdog Report Concludes https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796806517/trump-broke-the-law-in-freezing-ukraine-funds-watchdog-report-concludes?sc=18&f=1001

The GAO also released a report that determined Obama broke the law. Do you remember what happened? Nothing at all. The GAO is meaningless. The Democrats don't care about the GAO and the Republicans don't care about the GAO.

Oh?  What did Obama do?  ( I missed that report)

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/215787-obama-rejects-report-that-bergdahl-swap-was-illegal

The GAO told Obama what he did was illegal and Obama responded by saying "no".
Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue.
Ah so "officially breaking the law", at least according to the GAO, does not  automatically equate to a high crime and misdemeanor for which a president should be impeached.
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7119
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4764 on: January 19, 2020, 03:27:57 AM »
Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue.

I'm not sure what you mean. Our discussion was about the legal system, not morality. If you believe what Trump did was morally wrong, then what the GAO has to say about it is irrelevant. Your original post was about how Trump broke the law and made no mention about any moral quandaries you had with his actions.

You mentioned "he broke the law" first. Then I showed you when Obama broke the law. Once given that evidence, you immediately began mumbling about morality. This is not an acceptable way to have a discussion, Dave.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 03:31:12 AM by Rushy »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5221
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4765 on: January 19, 2020, 10:11:30 AM »
Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue.

I'm not sure what you mean. Our discussion was about the legal system, not morality. If you believe what Trump did was morally wrong, then what the GAO has to say about it is irrelevant. Your original post was about how Trump broke the law and made no mention about any moral quandaries you had with his actions.

You mentioned "he broke the law" first. Then I showed you when Obama broke the law. Once given that evidence, you immediately began mumbling about morality. This is not an acceptable way to have a discussion, Dave.

True, and yes, they both broke the law.  They were both wrong.  Both should be punished accordingly.  One for not notifying congress in advanced of prisoner exchange, one for holding up funds allocated by congressional law.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4766 on: January 21, 2020, 12:26:30 PM »
Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue.

I'm not sure what you mean. Our discussion was about the legal system, not morality. If you believe what Trump did was morally wrong, then what the GAO has to say about it is irrelevant. Your original post was about how Trump broke the law and made no mention about any moral quandaries you had with his actions.

You mentioned "he broke the law" first. Then I showed you when Obama broke the law. Once given that evidence, you immediately began mumbling about morality. This is not an acceptable way to have a discussion, Dave.

True, and yes, they both broke the law.  They were both wrong.  Both should be punished accordingly.  One for not notifying congress in advanced of prisoner exchange, one for holding up funds allocated by congressional law.
This is just pure poppycock.

No law was broken in delaying the aid to Ukraine.

It seems all of the town hall decriers trumpeting Trump is not allowed to ask for investigations into possible corruption taking place in a foreign country before authorizing the release of foreign aid are arguing two points:

1) If you are a declared candidate for US national office, you are exempt from potential investigation and free to commit acts of corrupt business practices, such as extortion, money laundering, etc.; and,

B) Orange man just bad.

“It was OMB’s understanding that a brief period was needed, prior to the funds expiring, to engage in a policy process regarding those funds,” says the nine-page Office of Management and Budget letter to the Government Accountability Office, which had inquired about the legality of the move. “OMB took appropriate action, in light of a pending policy process, to ensure that funds were not obligated prematurely in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.”

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/omb-ukraine-aid-delay-was-consistent-with-law-past-practice

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5221
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4767 on: January 21, 2020, 08:09:17 PM »
Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue.

I'm not sure what you mean. Our discussion was about the legal system, not morality. If you believe what Trump did was morally wrong, then what the GAO has to say about it is irrelevant. Your original post was about how Trump broke the law and made no mention about any moral quandaries you had with his actions.

You mentioned "he broke the law" first. Then I showed you when Obama broke the law. Once given that evidence, you immediately began mumbling about morality. This is not an acceptable way to have a discussion, Dave.

True, and yes, they both broke the law.  They were both wrong.  Both should be punished accordingly.  One for not notifying congress in advanced of prisoner exchange, one for holding up funds allocated by congressional law.
This is just pure poppycock.

No law was broken in delaying the aid to Ukraine.

It seems all of the town hall decriers trumpeting Trump is not allowed to ask for investigations into possible corruption taking place in a foreign country before authorizing the release of foreign aid are arguing two points:

1) If you are a declared candidate for US national office, you are exempt from potential investigation and free to commit acts of corrupt business practices, such as extortion, money laundering, etc.; and,

B) Orange man just bad.

“It was OMB’s understanding that a brief period was needed, prior to the funds expiring, to engage in a policy process regarding those funds,” says the nine-page Office of Management and Budget letter to the Government Accountability Office, which had inquired about the legality of the move. “OMB took appropriate action, in light of a pending policy process, to ensure that funds were not obligated prematurely in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.”

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/omb-ukraine-aid-delay-was-consistent-with-law-past-practice

1. Said investigation was already conducted in a foregin country and found NO COLLUSION!  TOTAL EXONERATION!

2. IF Trump wanted to Investigate Joe Biden for his conduct why didn't he start the investigation IN AMERICA?!  You know the LAND HE BETRAYED?!  Probably the same reason Hillary isn't in Jail: BECAUSE THERE IS NO CRIME!

3. You are literally quoting Trump's guy saying it was legal.  What are you gonna quote Trump next and claim "He's president therefore it's legal"?

Re: Trump
« Reply #4768 on: January 22, 2020, 01:22:14 PM »
Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue.

I'm not sure what you mean. Our discussion was about the legal system, not morality. If you believe what Trump did was morally wrong, then what the GAO has to say about it is irrelevant. Your original post was about how Trump broke the law and made no mention about any moral quandaries you had with his actions.

You mentioned "he broke the law" first. Then I showed you when Obama broke the law. Once given that evidence, you immediately began mumbling about morality. This is not an acceptable way to have a discussion, Dave.

True, and yes, they both broke the law.  They were both wrong.  Both should be punished accordingly.  One for not notifying congress in advanced of prisoner exchange, one for holding up funds allocated by congressional law.
This is just pure poppycock.

No law was broken in delaying the aid to Ukraine.

It seems all of the town hall decriers trumpeting Trump is not allowed to ask for investigations into possible corruption taking place in a foreign country before authorizing the release of foreign aid are arguing two points:

1) If you are a declared candidate for US national office, you are exempt from potential investigation and free to commit acts of corrupt business practices, such as extortion, money laundering, etc.; and,

B) Orange man just bad.

“It was OMB’s understanding that a brief period was needed, prior to the funds expiring, to engage in a policy process regarding those funds,” says the nine-page Office of Management and Budget letter to the Government Accountability Office, which had inquired about the legality of the move. “OMB took appropriate action, in light of a pending policy process, to ensure that funds were not obligated prematurely in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.”

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/omb-ukraine-aid-delay-was-consistent-with-law-past-practice

1. Said investigation was already conducted in a foregin country and found NO COLLUSION!  TOTAL EXONERATION!


2. IF Trump wanted to Investigate Joe Biden for his conduct why didn't he start the investigation IN AMERICA?!  You know the LAND HE BETRAYED?!  Probably the same reason Hillary isn't in Jail: BECAUSE THERE IS NO CRIME!

3. You are literally quoting Trump's guy saying it was legal.  What are you gonna quote Trump next and claim "He's president therefore it's legal"?
1 & 2:
Oh, so you are stating the mere declaration of candidacy for US President is reason enough to prohibit investigation into your personal dealings and past conduct...

But only if you are a democrat...

3:
Actually, I am also quoting the House Resolution containing impeachment articles 1 and 2, both clearly absent of any specific code violations.

What Trump did was legal and violated no laws known to man.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 12:16:01 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5221
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4769 on: January 22, 2020, 04:29:33 PM »
I think Lackey broke, guys.   He's not even matching his own posts anymore.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4770 on: January 23, 2020, 12:19:23 PM »
I think Lackey broke, guys.   He's not even matching his own posts anymore.
I notice, and so does everyone else, your claim that Trump broke a law, any law...

is conspicuously absent of support and baseless of fact.

i.e., The code number of said law;further,

...a vacuous claim.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10388
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #4771 on: January 23, 2020, 03:37:00 PM »
No, people do still vote in presidential elections;
To determine how their state will vote, in accordance with that state's particular rules. This is distinct from the people directly voting, as evidenced by the fact that Hillary Clinton is not currently POTUS.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1565
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4772 on: January 23, 2020, 03:47:14 PM »
No, people do still vote in presidential elections;
To determine how their state will vote, in accordance with that state's particular rules. This is distinct from the people directly voting, as evidenced by the fact that Hillary Clinton is not currently POTUS.

As opposed to counties, which don't vote at all.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8923
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4773 on: January 23, 2020, 04:36:43 PM »
I think Lackey broke, guys.   He's not even matching his own posts anymore.
I notice, and so does everyone else, your claim that Trump broke a law, any law...

is conspicuously absent of support and baseless of fact.

i.e., The code number of said law;further,

...a vacuous claim.

I mean, he did break the law. But the redress for breaking that law is spelled out in the law itself, and it isn't impeachment. It is mostly a nothingberder, aside from adding to a pattern of behavior.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4774 on: January 24, 2020, 11:51:07 AM »
I think Lackey broke, guys.   He's not even matching his own posts anymore.
I notice, and so does everyone else, your claim that Trump broke a law, any law...

is conspicuously absent of support and baseless of fact.

i.e., The code number of said law;further,

...a vacuous claim.

I mean, he did break the law. But the redress for breaking that law is spelled out in the law itself, and it isn't impeachment. It is mostly a nothingberder, aside from adding to a pattern of behavior.
Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5221
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4775 on: January 24, 2020, 12:52:44 PM »
I think Lackey broke, guys.   He's not even matching his own posts anymore.
I notice, and so does everyone else, your claim that Trump broke a law, any law...

is conspicuously absent of support and baseless of fact.

i.e., The code number of said law;further,

...a vacuous claim.

I mean, he did break the law. But the redress for breaking that law is spelled out in the law itself, and it isn't impeachment. It is mostly a nothingberder, aside from adding to a pattern of behavior.
Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?

If we spend the time looking up the damn law, will you shut up?

Re: Trump
« Reply #4776 on: January 24, 2020, 01:11:22 PM »
I think Lackey broke, guys.   He's not even matching his own posts anymore.
I notice, and so does everyone else, your claim that Trump broke a law, any law...

is conspicuously absent of support and baseless of fact.

i.e., The code number of said law;further,

...a vacuous claim.

I mean, he did break the law. But the redress for breaking that law is spelled out in the law itself, and it isn't impeachment. It is mostly a nothingberder, aside from adding to a pattern of behavior.
Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?

If we spend the time looking up the damn law, will you shut up?
About what?

If you actually find a law he broke, I will actually contact the House Impeachment Managers and demand they introduce it into evidence at the Senate trial.

Cause they didn't write it out, and they haven't even verbalized it in front of the Senate.

In case you haven't noticed.

Al they have offered is opinion.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8923
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4777 on: January 24, 2020, 01:51:21 PM »
Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?
The Impoundment Control Act

Cause they didn't write it out, and they haven't even verbalized it in front of the Senate.
Probably because it has nothing to do with the impeachment trial. The law spells out what needs to be done in the event it isn't being followed, which hasn't been done so this "violation" isn't really relevant. I am sure you have read the act by now and know this already.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4778 on: January 24, 2020, 02:28:55 PM »
Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?
The Impoundment Control Act

Cause they didn't write it out, and they haven't even verbalized it in front of the Senate.
Probably because it has nothing to do with the impeachment trial. The law spells out what needs to be done in the event it isn't being followed, which hasn't been done so this "violation" isn't really relevant. I am sure you have read the act by now and know this already.
Why would this sentence:
"Nothing contained in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, shall be construed as—

(1) asserting or conceding the constitutional powers or limitations of either the Congress or the President;"

not immediately point out to any lawyer or judge reading it that no law was broken?

Further, a couple of Executive Orders appear to have been signed (Nixon and then amended by Reagan)  delegating the reporting functions, rights, and responsibilities, to the Director of OMB.

Trump doesn't even come into the equation.

So, back to square one.

No law violated.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2020, 03:14:30 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5221
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4779 on: January 24, 2020, 03:33:30 PM »
Guess that's a 'no'.


Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?
The Impoundment Control Act

Cause they didn't write it out, and they haven't even verbalized it in front of the Senate.
Probably because it has nothing to do with the impeachment trial. The law spells out what needs to be done in the event it isn't being followed, which hasn't been done so this "violation" isn't really relevant. I am sure you have read the act by now and know this already.
Why would this sentence:
"Nothing contained in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, shall be construed as—

(1) asserting or conceding the constitutional powers or limitations of either the Congress or the President;"

not immediately point out to any lawyer or judge reading it that no law was broken?
Because they, unlike you, know what it means?
Its basic legal code that states that the constitution superscendes this document.  Nothing more.

Quote
Further, a couple of Executive Orders appear to have been signed (Nixon and then amended by Reagan)  delegating the reporting functions, rights, and responsibilities, to the Director of OMB.

Trump doesn't even come into the equation.

So, back to square one.

No law violated.
Site the executive orders please or accept the law was broken.