Govt watchdog says White House violated law by withholding Ukraine aid

I would think Giuliani and his "associates" would have been a better example.

 

Well that wasn't the topic of the phone call and guess what the DOJ is investigating the "associates". The fact remains the Hunter Biden issues needs a full investigation.

 

Is someone stopping Barr? If there is sufficient probable cause, I would imagine he's being investigated as we write.

 

We need to cooperation of the Ukraines and I'm not sure Durham's not doing so but geez maybe Barr doesn't want to be impeached for suggesting Hunter Biden be investigated for his blaring probable cause as outlined here

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ng-ukraine-aid.566917/page-19#post-1071355614

 

And those people collected more yes votes for impeachment than any previous president.

Got 'em.

 

There is no video of Biden threatening to break the law.

 

In a vacuum, one devoid of context, this violation of the law is not a big deal.

But trump was impeached because of conduct directly related to this violation of the law.

There is no Biden scandal and the previous investigations prove such. But if you think another investigation is needed, CONVINCE A DOMESTIC INVESTIGATIVE AGENCY.

 

There most certainly is a Biden scandal and the State Department was worried about it under the Obama administration and needs to be fully investigated as I noted in

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ng-ukraine-aid.566917/page-19#post-1071355614

in this thread.

The money was allocated before the end of the fiscal year, why the GAO suddenly decided to look now is what is questionable.

 

I believe Biden was working for a lobbying firm. Ukraine hired them to lobby the U.S. government and they suggested putting Biden on the board. But, I have no problem in Barr investigating Biden, provided there is probable cause regarding a crime. I don't think it was particularly smart of the President to ask his personal lawyer and his "associates" to conduct the investigation. In fact, I think that and his refusal to accept the results of his own administration regarding Crowdstrike, plus his efforts to keep everything hidden and releasing the tel-con with Zelenskiy only after the WB compliant are probably impeachable offenses. Another question I would have is why didn't he just tell Congress that he intended to withhold funding because of his new concerns about Ukraine corruption, as the law requires?

 

You want to talk about curious timings (without acknowledging that the GAO began its investigation immediately after Congressional referral and issued its ruling now despite ongoing refusals by the White House to release relevant documents)?

Then how about the suspicious timing of your "Biden scandal" that only warranted a pause of the Military aid in 2019 and not in 2017 or 2018?

 

Nope. The funds were withheld DESPITE all approvals having been given by OMB. The instant if certified that all conditions imposed by Congress were met, then the money was immediately payable. To that extent, Trump's intervention was illegal.

 

Thank you for correcting my typo.

 

Yeah, but look at the people that voted yes. Nobody takes it seriously. Ya got nothin.

 

"Political science" has a dictionary? Who would have known.

 

The DOJ can investigate Americans in respect of corruption abroad. You should already know this.
The fact that the DOJ is not investigating the Bidens means they aren’t even suspected of engaging in any corruption abroad.

 

That would be my reading of it...

 

Wherever point man Biden goes, the Biden’s make millions. Giuliani wants the Senate to call him.

 

Trump is a mere 67 votes away from being removed and he is forever impeached.

That is not nothing.

 

We want to call Giuliani.

 

I0 Million illegal votes from South America don't really count. California, New York and a few other bastions of illegal hell holes do not make America.

 

impeachment : the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something.
"the prosecutor's detailed impeachment of the character witness"

It is just a phrase. It is not a crime, could be, but one of the things Democrats like to overlook is INNOCENT until proven guilty. The way this impeachment is going down, is more like the way they do things in Russia, China and other socialist countries, when they wish to overthrow a legal elected government. You know, manufacture false evidence, charge the innocent and then pre-judge them guilty.

 

Yep. "Dictionary of Political Science," edited by Joseph Dunner, Philosophical Library, New York, 1964 (125 contributing editors).The entry on "Politics" is on page 418. Most academic subjects have dictionaries defining the terms commonly used in their field.

 

I have no problem with that all except I want to know what my Senators voted just as other Americans would want the same thing from their Senators. I can understand how Democrats would like that because that is just the way they are. Unconstitutional, Socialists and Communist oriented.

 

It's not a criminal trial. If a crime were part of the articles of impeachment, the maximum penalty on conviction on impeachment would be removal from office and possibly prohibition from holding future public offices. Then, federal or state prosecutors would have to indict and prosecute. Comparing impeachment to the criminal "show trials" of Russia, China and other countries is comparing apples and oranges.