Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 101

Thread: Impeachment Related: GAO Determines Trump Violated Impoundment Control Act

  1. #91
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,017
    Amen (Given)
    1959
    Amen (Received)
    1608
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Ironically, Johnson's impeachment has come to be widely regarded as an abuse of power by Congress who attempted to hamstring the president with an unconstitutional law that was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court.
    Regardless of what you believe to have been an abuse of congressional power, the impeachment itself with respect to the presidents "abuse of power" wasn't based on the violation of criminal code.

  2. #92
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,124
    Amen (Given)
    6115
    Amen (Received)
    7499
    Wrong again. Johnson's impeachment was based on his breaking an actual law, even though the law in question was unconstitutional.
    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

  3. Amen NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  4. #93
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,143
    Amen (Given)
    8140
    Amen (Received)
    8555
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post

    But if your contention is that only Trump can answer for his motivations (clearly a false assertion but let's roll with it), then you would rationally expect -- even demand -- that Trump be deposed under oath, as Clinton was?

    --Sam
    I'm deleting the rest, as I have neither the time nor the patience to explain 1) How DoD budgeting documents are sent to Congress and 2) That the President SETS policy and OMB FOLLOWS his lead. So, every last one of them can say it was against policy, but it is within the President's power to change that policy.

    But, yes. I fully expect Trump to testify on his own behalf.


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  5. #94
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,020
    Amen (Given)
    159
    Amen (Received)
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    I'm deleting the rest, as I have neither the time nor the patience to explain 1) How DoD budgeting documents are sent to Congress and 2) That the President SETS policy and OMB FOLLOWS his lead. So, every last one of them can say it was against policy, but it is within the President's power to change that policy.

    But, yes. I fully expect Trump to testify on his own behalf.
    By definition, then, are you saying that whatever Trump orders constitutes "policy" and not "personal"? If not, how would you tell? The President will surely say now that his motives weren't personal. But that's directly at odds with what his attorney was saying in May.

    And given that Trump will not testify in his defense, just as he refused to sit under oath for the Mueller probe, what does that say about the trial and the senators who refuse to call him?

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  6. #95
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,143
    Amen (Given)
    8140
    Amen (Received)
    8555
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    By definition, then, are you saying that whatever Trump orders constitutes "policy" and not "personal"?
    When it comes to foreign policy matters, like military aid, yes.

    If not, how would you tell? The President will surely say now that his motives weren't personal. But that's directly at odds with what his attorney was saying in May.
    No it isn't. His attorney never said anything in relation to the election in 2020.

    And given that Trump will not testify in his defense, just as he refused to sit under oath for the Mueller probe, what does that say about the trial and the senators who refuse to call him?

    --Sam
    Nothing. He is under no unction to testify for or against himself and they are under no unction to call him knowing that the 5th Amendment protects him from incriminating himself. Not every trial calls for direct testimony of the defendant. Ever watch Matlock?


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  7. #96
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,020
    Amen (Given)
    159
    Amen (Received)
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    When it comes to foreign policy matters, like military aid, yes.



    No it isn't. His attorney never said anything in relation to the election in 2020.



    Nothing. He is under no unction to testify for or against himself and they are under no unction to call him knowing that the 5th Amendment protects him from incriminating himself. Not every trial calls for direct testimony of the defendant. Ever watch Matlock?

    This is incoherent. Under this theory, a president's lawyer can shop around Hawaii to foreign governments for his client, a President can later withdraw all military personnel and equipment from Hawaii as a "policy" decision, despite the clear and unanimous dissent of his diplomatic and national security agencies, and refuse on "policy grounds" to defend an invasion of Hawaii by a country that just happens to be using state funds to build 100 hotels for the President's business in that country.

    Your framework dictates here that only the President could give testimony as to whether his decision was made for personal or national interests ... and that he doesn't have to.

    Complete nonsense that completely exposes a deliberate lack of thought.

    -Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  8. Amen JimL amen'd this post.
  9. #97
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,143
    Amen (Given)
    8140
    Amen (Received)
    8555
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    This is incoherent.
    No it isn't. You are apparently TRYING to be obtuse.

    Under this theory, a president's lawyer can shop around Hawaii to foreign governments for his client,
    Utterly false. Try again. The Constitution forbids the government reducing the size of its territory.

    a President can later withdraw all military personnel and equipment from Hawaii as a "policy" decision,
    Nope. Only Congress can order base closures. I've been through 3 BRAC's. Have you served at all to know how the US military works?

    Under Article I, it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to "lay and collect Taxes" and to "borrow Money," to make "Appropriations" and "provide for the common Defence," to "raise and support Armies" and "provide and maintain a Navy," and to "call forth the Militia."

    despite the clear and unanimous dissent of his diplomatic and national security agencies,
    Obtuse.

    and refuse on "policy grounds" to defend an invasion of Hawaii by a country that just happens to be using state funds to build 100 hotels for the President's business in that country.
    Actually, yes he could refuse to defend Hawaii from invasion as a matter of policy. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States... Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. However, doing so would probably guarantee he not get elected. And he would have to convince Congress to pull the troops out. Without their consent to close the installations, those local commanders have the authority to override Presidential orders in matters of self-preservation.

    Your framework dictates here that only the President could give testimony as to whether his decision was made for personal or national interests ... and that he doesn't have to.
    His or Rudy's.


    Complete nonsense that completely exposes a deliberate lack of thought.
    Or perhaps you fail to grasp the powers directly provided to the Executive. You obviously don't have a clue how the military works.


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  10. #98
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,020
    Amen (Given)
    159
    Amen (Received)
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    No it isn't. You are apparently TRYING to be obtuse.



    Utterly false. Try again. The Constitution forbids the government reducing the size of its territory.



    Nope. Only Congress can order base closures. I've been through 3 BRAC's. Have you served at all to know how the US military works?

    Under Article I, it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to "lay and collect Taxes" and to "borrow Money," to make "Appropriations" and "provide for the common Defence," to "raise and support Armies" and "provide and maintain a Navy," and to "call forth the Militia."



    Obtuse.



    Actually, yes he could refuse to defend Hawaii from invasion as a matter of policy. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States... Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. However, doing so would probably guarantee he not get elected. And he would have to convince Congress to pull the troops out. Without their consent to close the installations, those local commanders have the authority to override Presidential orders in matters of self-preservation.



    His or Rudy's.




    Or perhaps you fail to grasp the powers directly provided to the Executive. You obviously don't have a clue how the military works.

    Only Congress has the power of the purse, too. And the President cannot simply decide not to allocate money that was appropriated by Congress and signed into law. Congress has the sole power to impeach and try the President and the President cannot simply order his agencies to withhold documents and witnesses and obstruct that impeachment.

    The point made is that the President violated the limits to his powers under the Constitution. For a hypothetical, your logic demands a different outcome from what you've applied to this scenario. You understand, when presented with a hypothetical, that your application is incoherent. Now you just have to apply it to this matter.

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  11. #99
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,143
    Amen (Given)
    8140
    Amen (Received)
    8555
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    Only Congress has the power of the purse, too. And the President cannot simply decide not to allocate money that was appropriated by Congress and signed into law.
    Correct. And when he does, the remedy is the Comptroller suing. That didn't happen. And since the funds got released before the Comptroller got involved, there is nothing anyone can do. It's bad form, but not impeachable. You have to beg the question that it was because of the 2020 election to try to parlay it into something impeachable.

    Congress has the sole power to impeach and try the President and the President cannot simply order his agencies to withhold documents and witnesses and obstruct that impeachment.
    Actually, yes he can. He can classify ANY document or material he sees fit, and HE is the declassifying official.

    The point made is that the President violated the limits to his powers under the Constitution.
    As has happened several times. Disputes between the branches are typically handled in the Judicial Branch. But the Democrats have been plotting to impeach him since he won. There simply is no denying that.

    For a hypothetical, your logic demands a different outcome from what you've applied to this scenario. You understand, when presented with a hypothetical, that your application is incoherent. Now you just have to apply it to this matter.

    --Sam
    Because your scenarios are incongruent with the actual situation and you have to beg the actual question to make them so. I'll not agree to your fictional scenario because doing so grants the actual matter at dispute.


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  12. #100
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,020
    Amen (Given)
    159
    Amen (Received)
    764
    You won't agree to the "fictional scenario" because the hypothetical of a president withdrawing troops or cutting military funds to a state he has surreptitiously agreed to cede control of to a hostile power strikes at the exact same questions we're dealing with here.

    The President could argue he was doing so for policy reasons. And he might have to violate some laws to enforce his scheme. But you're arguing that the President does not have to be accountable to Congress for the scheme, nor does he have to release any documentation that supports or contradicts his claim of it being a "policy" decision, rather than a corrupt personal one.

    The President, you argue, could not even be sufficiently questioned about his motive by Congress.

    You have, for partisan purposes, created a framework that is obviously absurd and unacceptable when applied to other scenarios. Hence, it is incoherent.

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  13. Amen JimL amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •