- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/6/19 at 9:57 am to GumboPot
quote:
Honest question, when was the money supposed to be spent? What date?
This is a good point that I've meant to mention....there is no federal law that prescribes an exact expedited timeline. Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 the President has the ability to go back to Congress with an official action/request to withhold such aid, and it's just common sense that there must be a period in which the President is considering whether to do that. The aid is necessarily in limbo during that period. Clearly Trump ultimately declined to take that action.
Posted on 12/6/19 at 9:59 am to davyjones
Sure, he decided to use the leverage to his benefit.
If a Democrat had done the same thing, you guys would be apoplectic, and you know it.
If a Democrat had done the same thing, you guys would be apoplectic, and you know it.
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:00 am to VOR
quote:
If
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:01 am to VOR
quote:
Sure, he decided to use the leverage to his benefit.
Again, where is the evidence the money was held, by Trump, specifically to coerce Zelensky?
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:01 am to Centinel
quote:Good. Now as to "why" it was withheld:
No. I'm with the group that requires evidence that this hold was anything other than a routine hold that happens multiple times a year.
1) There has been no official explanation as to why the aid was witheld.
2) The hold on the aid was done in a VERY unusual way, by Trump directing Mulvaney to direct OMB.
3) Mulvaney admitted that the military aid was held up for specific investigative announcements.
4) Sondland communicated to the Ukraine that the military aid would not come without the specific announcements.
5) the military aid was specifically conditioned in Trump's phone call to Zelensky "we need you to do us a favor, though".
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:03 am to VOR
quote:
If a Democrat had done the same thing, you guys would be apoplectic, and you know it.
Not in this situation. Obama did much worse and their were ZERO articles of impeachment in the GOP controlled House.
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:04 am to GumboPot
quote:Part of the aid was already lost in early September. It would all have disappeared by the 15th I believe.
What was the deadline date the aid was supposed to be delivered?
But really, trying to deny there was any hold is a bad look for you.
This post was edited on 12/6/19 at 10:05 am
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:04 am to mmcgrath
quote:
1) There has been no official explanation as to why the aid was witheld.
This is not evidence.
quote:
2) The hold on the aid was done in a VERY unusual way, by Trump directing Mulvaney to direct OMB.
This is not evidence.
quote:
3) Mulvaney admitted that the military aid was held up for specific investigative announcements.
Where did he admit this?
quote:
4) Sondland communicated to the Ukraine that the military aid would not come without the specific announcements.
Did you watch the hearings? Sondland, on National TV, straight up said he was never directed to say this. He just "presumed" it.
quote:
[quote]5) the military aid was specifically conditioned in Trump's phone call to Zelensky "we need you to do us a favor, though".
bullshite dude. I've read the fricking transcript. There is no mention of the military aid.
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:04 am to VOR
quote:
Sure, he decided to use the leverage to his benefit.
If a Democrat had done the same thing, you guys would be apoplectic, and you know it.
A Democrat actually did what trump didn’t.
His name is joe Biden
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:04 am to mmcgrath
quote:
lost in early September
quote:Why?
It would all have disappeared by the 15th I believe.
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:07 am to mmcgrath
quote:
mmcgrath
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:08 am to mmcgrath
5 lies
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:09 am to mmcgrath
If there is no deadline there is no hold. Ukraine got their money. Trump had five subsequent meetings after the famous call with Zelenskyy and Ukraine officials. Five meetings.
In those meeting Trump was doing his fiduciary duty to ensure tax payer dollars were being appropriately allocated.
Just admit it already.
You are mad because Trump spent the money by purchasing Javelins from Raytheon before you can get your dirty hands on the cash and purchase "blankets and MREs' and spend the remaining money like you and your swamp buddies wanted. After all, the swamp views it as their money.
In those meeting Trump was doing his fiduciary duty to ensure tax payer dollars were being appropriately allocated.
Just admit it already.
You are mad because Trump spent the money by purchasing Javelins from Raytheon before you can get your dirty hands on the cash and purchase "blankets and MREs' and spend the remaining money like you and your swamp buddies wanted. After all, the swamp views it as their money.
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:09 am to Centinel
It’s embarrassing we have to share oxygen, much less a country with liars like vor and mm
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:10 am to VOR
quote:
Sure, he decided to use the leverage to his benefit.
If a Democrat had done the same thing, you guys would be apoplectic, and you know it.
I'm sure some probably would be so regardless of the facts in evidence, but not me. I'd be just as cynical about the allegation. It's just my nature.
There's just simply too much to cut through with Occam's Razor. For instance, please spell out exactly what the potential personal gain was going to be. A public disclosure that something shady very well could have gone down, given the circumstances and Joe and Hunter's respective positions? We already knew that, nothing new there. What was the specific personal gain Trump stood to benefit that wasn't already in existence?
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:13 am to Centinel
quote:1 and 2 are both evidence. Trump is more than welcome to offer testimony otherwise.
This is not evidence.
quote:
Where did he admit this?
In his press conference:
quote:
Reporter (M): (21:27)
So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?
Mick Mulvaney: (21:34)
The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.
Reporter (M): (21:42)
Withholding the funding?
Mick Mulvaney: (21:43)
Yeah.
quote:Sondland admitted to what he said because he initially didn't "recall" it yet other people heard him. His explanation that it wasn't an order is not credible.
Did you watch the hearings? Sondland, on National TV, straight up said he was never directed to say this. He just "presumed" it.
quote:It was exactly what Zelensky was talking about.
bullshite dude. I've read the fricking transcript. There is no mention of the military aid.
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:13 am to davyjones
quote:
There's just simply too much to cut through with Occam's Razor.
*Ockham's Razor only works if you use reason and logic.
It's pretty much pointless to bring it up with those who base their decisions on feelings.
*Either spelling is correct, I just like the old school spelling better.
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:15 am to Centinel
quote:
Ockham's
Did not know that. I like it.
Posted on 12/6/19 at 10:17 am to mmcgrath
quote:
Reporter (M): (21:27)
So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?
Mick Mulvaney: (21:34)
The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.
Reporter (M): (21:42)
Withholding the funding?
Mick Mulvaney: (21:43)
Yeah.
So your official stance now is it is okay to send money to corrupt counties. Got it.
Y'all run on that, okay.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News