- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Who sets foreign policy?
Posted on 12/9/19 at 4:07 pm to samiam5211
Posted on 12/9/19 at 4:07 pm to samiam5211
quote:
....Ukraine scheme...
There was no “scheme” you pathetic, nattering nincompoopian insufferable inaccurate blunderbus.
0
Posted on 12/9/19 at 4:20 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Dat Gumbo man ain't nebber heard of tha Impoundment Act.
Why do you keep linking things that have nothing to do with setting US Foreign Policy?
Posted on 12/9/19 at 4:26 pm to Centinel
quote:
Why do you keep linking things that have nothing to do with setting US Foreign Policy?
He's trying to find a loophole that says the president doesn't set foreign policy.
How ridiculous does that sound?
Good Lord I hope TigerDoc is not a real doctor.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 4:31 pm to samiam5211
quote:
So why didn’t he run his Ukraine scheme through normal channels.
What "scheme" is this??
*Before you answer that, just for context which is need for insight to your point...How are you defining "scheme"?*
Posted on 12/9/19 at 4:43 pm to GumboPot
quote:
He's trying to find a loophole that says the president doesn't set foreign policy.
We have a system of shared powers, sillyhead.
Congress appropriates and the Executive faithfully executes the laws for appropriated moneys. Reagan's baws got caught up in this tussle in an inverse version of this - spending on prohibited area. Iran-Contra is a better analogy to what we're seeing now than Watergate.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 4:48 pm to TigerDoc
Man of orange is the King of foreign policy.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 4:53 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
by TigerDoc
Have the Dems been specifically referencing the Impoundment Act a good bit in these impeachment proceedings/hearings?? Maybe I've missed it.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 4:56 pm to TigerDoc
Obama’s gun running scheme?
Posted on 12/9/19 at 4:57 pm to davyjones
Ted Lieu brought it up today and below is from the "key findings" section of the House Select Committee Impeachment Report.
quote:
IV. President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine, a strategic partner, to resist Russian aggression. Because the aid was appropriated by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and signed into law by the President, its expenditure was required by law. Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. government, the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anti-corruption justification. The President did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for the provision to Ukraine of the military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 4:58 pm to TigerDoc
You have him this time.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 4:59 pm to roadGator
I most certainly don't. We're in a maelstrom.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 4:59 pm to TigerDoc
By any means necessary leads to this. Sad.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 5:00 pm to roadGator
I agree.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 5:04 pm to TigerDoc
One single member brought it up in his 5 minute allotment only today, this far into the process? Seems like the Impoundment Act would be front and center given the withholding of aid allegations. That's a federal act in the books that's easy to cite over and over.
Just seems curious that it hasn't been brought up as basis of impeachment constantly. Makes me suspicious that the Dems aren't so convinced that there's a viable case on it. Which if not, sorta brings into question the claim that it was unlawful to withhold the aid.
Just seems curious that it hasn't been brought up as basis of impeachment constantly. Makes me suspicious that the Dems aren't so convinced that there's a viable case on it. Which if not, sorta brings into question the claim that it was unlawful to withhold the aid.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 5:05 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
I most certainly don't. We're in a maelstrom.
I don't get it. It's a maelstrom by your own making.
Back off and pass bipartisan USMCA, infrastructure and prescription drugs and fight Trump on the merits of policy. Then allow the people to impeach Trump at the ballot box like normal peaceful democratic republics.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 5:08 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Iran-Contra is a better analogy to what we're seeing now than Watergate.
And BASED BILL BARR is the one who made sure the special prosecutor at the time would never ever get his hands on Presidents Reagan and Bush, members of the cabinet and other relevant officials as well.
Walsh's hissy fit at the December 1992 pardons was about as melty as it could get in those days.
And Barr's second tour under Trump is even better. He didn't even need pardons to frick up and ultimately end the Mueller investigation.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 5:08 pm to davyjones
quote:
Just seems curious that it hasn't been brought up as basis of impeachment constantly. Makes me suspicious that the Dems aren't so convinced that there's a viable case on it. Which if not, sorta brings into question the claim that it was unlawful to withhold the aid.
It's not brought up because it expose the fact that Trump did not withhold aid and met the September deadline to spend the aid on Ukraine. But by law he has a fiduciary duty to not release foreign aid to counties the executive deems corrupt.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 5:11 pm to davyjones
That's an interesting point. This law review article I was perusing seems to indicate that this situation would be an implied (bolded section below), but getting way above my pay grade now.
LINK
quote:
There are two governing principles relating
to the federal budget: (1) the Principle of the Public Fisc, which "assert[s] that all monies received from whatever source by any part of the government are public funds"3 and (2) the Principle of Appropriations Control, which "prohibit[s] expenditure of any public money without legislative authorization."4 There is also arguably a third principle, which is the inverse of the Principle of Appropriations Control. This principle, which this Note calls the Principle of Appropriation Expenditure, requires the expenditure of all money that is appropriated by the Congress, unless Congress authorizes the executive to spend less than the full amount appropriated. In the language of the budget, this principle prohibits the executive branch from impounding funds unless authorized to do so by Congress. With limited exceptions,5 the Principle of Appropriation Expenditure has been broadly accepted by those writing about impoundment and enforced by the courts.6
LINK
Posted on 12/9/19 at 5:14 pm to GumboPot
That's my thinking as well. Would send it down the road that shows there are reasons to withhold aid and a legal process for the President to do so. It didn't get to the point of kicking in the requirement of the President kicking it back to Congress with explanations as to why the aid should be rescinded, but if it had, he would have. There no logical argument that he would have just ignored the required actions of the Impoundment Act.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 5:16 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
but getting way above my pay grade now.
I share those sentiments. More than I'm willing to break down and digest.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News