Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

List of Trump's crimes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    If the president is considering deferal or recension but has not yet made a decision, then he can temporarily put the distribution of funds on hold without informing Congress provided the hold does not extend past the end of the fiscal year, which in this case it didn't.

    http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/the-pr...or-rescission/
    I love how when the narrative changes, you go googling for a rag that supports the new narrative. I this case now you’re relying on this dopey opinion piece rather than the people who have firsthand experience with foreign policy.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      I'll go with the two people that resigned. People don't resign their jobs because on the off chance is wasn't ok. They resign because they are convinced the thing was flat out wrong/illegal and they have a conscience.
      All that proves is that they happened to disagree with Trump's decision. So what?
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by whag View Post
        I love how when the narrative changes, you go googling for a rag that supports the new narrative. I this case now you’re relying on this dopey opinion piece rather than the people who have firsthand experience with foreign policy.
        I love how you went off on a genetic fallacy instead of engaging the argument.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          All that proves is that they happened to disagree with Trump's decision. So what?
          No - what it shows is that the hold was an egregious breach of policy relative to such funds. So much so that at least one person was forced out and replaced with a Trump loyalist. And given the testimony from OMB, others resigned because they believed it was actually an illegal act.

          To disagree with Trump means one thing when the disagreement is over how to use the legal powers of the presidency, and quite another when he wants to do that which is illegal.

          This is a problem many advising the president have run into and many of them had to resign over it.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            I love how you went off on a genetic fallacy instead of engaging the argument.
            The 'genetic fallacy' is only a fallacy if the genes are otherwise good.

            Nothing wrong with saying a house cat is not such a good choice for home defense because he is a house cat.
            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-05-2019, 05:11 PM.
            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              No - what it shows is that the hold was an egregious breach of policy relative to such funds. So much so that at least one person was forced out and replaced with a Trump loyalist. And given the testimony from OMB, others resigned because they believed it was actually an illegal act.

              To disagree with Trump means one thing when the disagreement is over how to use the legal powers of the presidency, and quite another when he wants to do that which is illegal.

              This is a problem many advising the president have run into and many of them had to resign over it.
              Thank you for a textbook example of begging the question.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MiniMan View Post
                I love how you went off on a genetic fallacy instead of engaging the argument.
                I love how you say “Siri, find me an article that says Trump’s withholding of Ukrainian funds was legal.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  If the president is considering deferal or recension but has not yet made a decision, then he can temporarily put the distribution of funds on hold without informing Congress provided the hold does not extend past the end of the fiscal year, which in this case it didn't.

                  http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/the-pr...or-rescission/
                  Haven't read it, but I'll get back to that. But as it turns out, all of that aid wasn't sent to Ukraine, 35 million is still at this moment, being withheld. Again Trump is illegally putting Ukraines and the U.S. national security at risk and helping Russia in it's ongoing aggression against our ally and fledgling democracy, Ukraine.


                  Okay, just read it. That was some nifty spin there I tell ya. "The wording isn't explicit, it needs go through the courts, therefore the President is well within his rights (under his interpretation) to withhold the appropriated funds." As Joe Biden would say, malarkey! And it still doesn't explain why he put a hold the funds without going to Congress in the first place, or why he released them when he did. What was the reason for the withholding, and what changed allowing their release. Well, it's obvious what changed, Congressional investigations into the withholding of the funds is what changed.
                  Last edited by JimL; 12-05-2019, 05:59 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Sondland was grilled during the hearing, and he consistently said that he was acting on his own presumption and not on any direct orders from the President.

                    Regarding the aid being withheld, yes, they need something more than the mere act of the aid being withheld to prove their case that a crime was committed, because withholding aid is not a crime in and of itself. Something like a memo, or an email, or a firsthand witness who received an order directly from the President. Until you have that, then the act of aid being withheld is not evidence of a crime.
                    Look up what a rebuttable presumption means in the legal dictionary. If you claim a certain act ,even if it the act in itself is legal, was done to facilitate an illegal act then it shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to claim otherwise.

                    I blame shift all the time, if a director of a company withdrawals money and can’t account for it, we don’t have to prove it was due to wrong doing we make the allegation and the director has to prove otherwise. A common one is if a company trades while insolvent then its automatically presumed the director/s are liable unless they prove otherwise.

                    Likewise if the allegation is that the aid was withheld for personal benefit and there is no explanation from Trump then you should be able to hold that presumption as truth until a coherent defense is made.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                      Look up what a rebuttable presumption means in the legal dictionary. If you claim a certain act ,even if it the act in itself is legal, was done to facilitate an illegal act then it shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to claim otherwise.

                      I blame shift all the time, if a director of a company withdrawals money and can’t account for it, we don’t have to prove it was due to wrong doing we make the allegation and the director has to prove otherwise. A common one is if a company trades while insolvent then its automatically presumed the director/s are liable unless they prove otherwise.

                      Likewise if the allegation is that the aid was withheld for personal benefit and there is no explanation from Trump then you should be able to hold that presumption as truth until a coherent defense is made.
                      It doesn't work like that at all. Otherwise you turn the presumption of innocence on its head. Prosecutors have to prove their accusations; it's not up to the defendant to disprove them.

                      Besides, legal precedent says that a president can withhold funds without alerting Congress if he is in the process of considering whether to defer or rescind those funds provided they are not held beyond the end of the fiscal year, and at least two reasons why Trump might take such an action were revealed during the hearings: 1) That Trump was concerned about ongoing corruption in the Ukraine; and 2) That he was concerned that other countries weren't offering equitable support.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        It doesn't work like that at all. Otherwise you turn the presumption of innocence on its head. Prosecutors have to prove their accusations; it's not up to the defendant to disprove them.
                        Prosecutors have to prove their accussations with a preponderance of the evidence, not with a smoking gun, and they've done that in spades.
                        Besides, legal precedent says that a president can withhold funds without alerting Congress if he is in the process of considering whether to defer or rescind those funds provided they are not held beyond the end of the fiscal year, and at least two reasons why Trump might take such an action were revealed during the hearings:
                        1) That Trump was concerned about ongoing corruption in the Ukraine; and 2)
                        Too bad, that excuse has already been debunked. Ukraine was found by the U.S. to have sufficiently dealt with the corruption in order that the funds be released prior to their being appropriated.

                        That he was concerned that other countries weren't offering equitable support.
                        Which has nothing to do with the obligations the U.S. has made.

                        These are what are called made up excuses after being caught in the act.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Prosecutors have to prove their accussations with a preponderance of the evidence,....
                          That all depends on the venue, Jim. The "standards of evidence" are "substantial evidence", "preponderance of evidence", "clear and convincing evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt".
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                            Prosecutors have to prove their accussations with a preponderance of the evidence...
                            That's only in a civil trial. In a criminal trial (which impeachment is; "high crimes and misdemeanors", remember?), the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

                            You guys also seem to think that "preponderance of evidence" is simply a matter of quantity, but it's the quality of evidence that matters. You could have a dozen shady witnesses (or witnesses promulgating rumors and hearsay) all claiming "He did it!", and it wouldn't qualify as a preponderance of evidence.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              That all depends on the venue, Jim. The "standards of evidence" are "substantial evidence", "preponderance of evidence", "clear and convincing evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt".
                              That's basically semantics, they all amount to the same thing.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                That's basically semantics, they all amount to the same thing.
                                No, Jim, they are specific legal standards of evidence. Once again, you're demonstrating your ignorance of legal proceedings in general.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                184 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X