Impeachment

By Withholding Funds to Ukraine, Trump Broke the Law

The Government Accountability Office says Trump's spending delay was illegal.

|

One argument that President Donald Trump's supporters have employed in the impeachment debate is that it was merely a "policy dispute." Yes, Trump held up aid to Ukraine last summer, this line goes, but he did so in pursuit of his agenda in the region. 

There are several problems with this argument. One is that it has become increasingly clear that the president was pursuing a personal political agenda through his personal lawyer, not a national agenda through the formal diplomatic process. Another problem, arguably more serious, is that even if Trump was pursuing some less blatantly corrupt goal, what he did was still illegal. 

That is the conclusion reached by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a sharply worded letter released this morning. The letter raises serious questions about whether the Trump administration violated the constitutional separation of powers. 

By withholding aid to Ukraine, the letter says, the Trump administration violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which governs the modern budget process and which specifically prohibits the executive branch from declining to spend money that Congress has authorized. 

"The Constitution," the GAO letter says, "specifically vests Congress with the power of the purse, providing that 'No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'" 

In addition, the Constitution gives Congress—and only Congress—the power to make laws. So when Congress makes a law that governs the budget process, and then passes a law laying out what money is to be spent and how, the president is constitutionally obliged to spend that money in the ways that Congress has authorized. 

In certain circumstances, the executive can delay such spending, but this typically requires a letter to Congress offering a justification for the proposed delay. The Trump administration provided no such notification or justification. Instead, the delays were buried in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) footnotes.

Asked to explain the funding delay, OMB, which handles spending for the executive branch, told GAO that Trump was making sure the money was not spent "in a manner that could conflict with the President's foreign policy." 

The money was withheld, in other words, to pursue executive branch policy objectives. This is not a permissible reason to delay such spending under the relevant law. As the GAO letter states, "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law." 

If this was a policy dispute, as Trump's defenders have argued, and if it was a matter of pursuing "the President's foreign policy," as the executive branch has claimed, it was illegal. So even if you buy the Trump administration's own explanation for the delay, the decision, which reports say was made shortly after the president finished a phone call with the Ukrainian president, was nevertheless against the law. 

This is not some minor stretching of presidential power to be shrugged off. The notion that Congress and only Congress has the power of the pursue is a core constitutional concept, a fundamental aspect of the separation of powers. The president's job is to execute the law, not make it.

Nor is this a matter in which the legal particulars are in dispute. As Ilya Somin of George Mason Law School wrote last year in a prescient discussion of the constitutional questions raised by the delay, "If there is one thing that constitutional law scholars agree on, it is that the spending power is supposed to be controlled by Congress, not the president. Even most of those who otherwise favor very broad presidential power concur."

Federal officials were aware that they were likely breaking the law at the time. Emails made public by the Center for Public Integrity last year show that OMB and Defense Department employees were concerned that without a clear rationale for delaying the funds, the move would be illegal under the Impoundment Control Act. One OMB lawyer quit the job, not wanting to participate in a potentially illegal act. 

Trump's political appointees dismissed these concerns both privately and publicly. In October 2019, OMB Director Mick Mulvaney noted that a report had suggested "that if we didn't pay out the money it would be illegal." This, he argued, was "one of those things that has a little shred of truth in it, that makes it look a lot worse than it really is." It's just a little presidential lawbreaking. How bad could it really be? 

Mulvaney's casual attitude towards presidential lawbreaking offers more than a little insight into how the Trump administration thinks about its legal and constitutional obligations. And the GAO has now confirmed that OMB staffers were right to worry that the maneuver was illegal, even under the administration's after-the-fact rationale that it was intended to pursue a legitimate presidential policy agenda. The Trump administration broke the law, it and violated a core constitutional principle in the process. It's as bad as it looks.

Advertisement

NEXT: A Memphis Cop Will Get $3,600 a Month, Even After Having Sex With a Suspect in a Murder Case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So, nothing about the Dem VA governor, the guy in blackface, starting a 2A confrontation, or the Bernie Bros threatening violence if they don’t get their way?

    1. Nope….48 hours in and all you hear is crickets from Unreason.

      1. Orange blog bad

        1. Ok. That’s a good one.

    2. watabout watabout watabout

      1. Trump doesn’t spend tax money fast enough: fascism!
        Ds declare martial law and promote gulags: liberty!
        Reason 2020

        1. You’re being too partisan, they discussed reducing the deficit before declaring martial law, completing their annexation of ~20% of the economy, and promoting gulags and even if they didn’t, Repubilcans would just do the same thing.

        2. The GAO is withholding logic and facts. What is the federal punishment for that?

          1. Be specific. And how could you possibly know?

        3. I seem to recall that the Obama administration was said to have withheld funds to Ukraine to secure the firing of the attorney general who was looking into their oil company’s hiring practices. That could have uncovered the possibility that those funds were withheld for personal, not national interest, reasons. Yet, one president is being impeached while the other suffered nary a cross word of illegality. The hypocrisy and political theater is not lost on the voting public.

          1. That’s TOTAL bullshit. What was withheld was GUARANTEEING a Ukraine loan from the IMF … not one penny of US dollars. Like cosigning a loan.

            The European Union also made the same demand of Ukraine,
            And it was the IMF, the lender, who demanded cosigners,

            That could have uncovered the possibility that those funds were withheld for personal, not national interest, reason

            There were NO funds withheld. You have been TOTALLY suckered.

            The hypocrisy and political theater is not lost on the voting public.

            The voting public is unaware of your hypocrisy … but well aware of the truth you’ve been denied. YOUR fault.

            1. Denying loan guarantees is the same as denying funds and are also passed by Congress.
              0blama also denied Ukraine lethal aid, that Congress wanted sent.
              Not to mention that the “law” would probably not hold up under Constitutional scrutiny due to it abrogating the president’s ability to carry out foreign policy – probably why we’ve never seen it referenced before.
              Oh, and FUCK OFF, Hihn!

              1. Of course, the additional fact is that the GAO finding is horseshit on it’s face.

                It COULD have been illegal, IF Trump had no released the funds before the final required date. As it turns out, he released them before the statutory date. Ergo, no violation of law.

                Kind of like threatening to speed on the expressway, but not finally speeding at all. Threatening to speed is not illegal.

                1. Of course, the additional fact is that the GAO finding is horseshit on it’s face.

                  LIKE FAKE NEWS (snort)

                  Kind of like threatening to speed on the expressway, but not finally speeding at all. Threatening to speed is not illegal.

                  IT WAS MORE THAN A THREAT. THE GAO REPORT DOCUMENTS NINE SEPARATE DELAYS … ALL OF WHICH ARE ILLEGAL,

                  Ukraine has now opened criminal investigations into the actions of Trump’s cronies …. actions ILLEGAL under Ukrainian AND intrenational law … actions dumbfuck Giuliani has already bragged about … which is as STUCKING FUPID as Don Jr, PROVING that he KNOWINGLY conspired with the Russian government.

                  Anything else you care to whine about?

                  1. “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

                    Unless Trump drew money not appropriated, he did nothing wrong. It doesn’t say he can’t refuse to draw it from the Treasury if appropriated, just can’t withdraw it unless appropriated.

                    1. THIS ISSUE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MONEY BEING DRAWN! BAT-SHIT CRAZY.

                      It doesn’t say he can’t refuse to draw it from the Treasury if appropriated,

                      That’s a separate law … as noted several times on this page. The Impound Act.

                      ****And you quoted the Constitution. NOT THE FUCKING LAW.

                      *i*** ARE YOU NOT AWARE THAT CONGRESS PASSES LAWS .,.. AND THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT LAW.

                      ***AND WHAT YOU CITE IS THE APPROPRIATIONS CLAUSE … WHICH IS ALL IT DEALS WITH … SEE THE WORD “APPROPRIATIONS” THAT YOU TYPED?

                      GET BACK TO US WHEN YOU LEARN WHAT “APPROPRIATIONS” MEANS.

                      ******THE PRESIENT HAS NO POWER … NONE … RELATING TO APPROPRIATIONS … WHAT THE FUCK CAUSES YOU TO BELIEVE LAWS ARE PASSED BY THE PRESIDENT??

              2. Denying loan guarantees is the same as denying funds and are also passed by Congress.

                WHAT DID I RESPOND TO, CHUMP?
                LOAN GUARANTEES ARE NOT TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

                1. “LOAN GUARANTEES ARE NOT TAXPAYER DOLLARS.”

                  Good Lord, the cause has been lost if that is intended to be a serious assertion. FFS.

                  1. How much money does one spend to co-sign a loan?
                    (smirk)

                    NOT guaranteeing a loan PROTECTS taxpayer dollars from being lost. Which is why the entire European Union made the same demand.

                    Firing the prosecutor was the ONLY demand — by the US, EU and International Monetary Fund (the lender) — that Ukraine refused to meet.

                    Ukraine was then known as THE most corrupt elected government on the planet. Its President
                    , who had refused to fir the Prosecutor — as demanded by the US, EU ad IMF, — was then defeated — in a landslide … BY A FUCKING COMEDIAN, WITH ZERO POLITICAL EXPERIENCE … but who campaigned on bringing honest people, to EVERY position of power … a complete housecleaning, of the corrupt Ukraine President. who was supported by the same corrupt American President, a lying sack of shit who even lied to defend his nazi and racist supporters in Charlottesville.

                    But Trumptards are SO easily brainwashed and manipulated …..

                    Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny? (lol)

            2. Obama held up military aid to Egypt, although he did eventually release it. So, by your reasoning, Obama broke the law and should have been impeached?

              1. Had the aid package already been passed? Did Obama notify Congress? Was his reason for the delay substantially related to ensuring the aid was used for its proper purpose?

                If not, then sure, he broke the law. Did he do so because he wanted Egypt to investigate a political rival? Then yes, he should have been impeached.

                1. Don’t forget, Trump did the same thing in 2016, by PUBLICLY asking Russia to hack Hillary’s serve. Russian hacked the DNC servers less than 24 hours later,

                  PLUS. Don Jr KNOWINGLY conspired with the Russian GOVERRNMENT, knowing their GOVERNMENT wanted to sabotage Hillary’s campaign. (The purpose of the Trump Tower meeting, which DUMBASS Junior posted to his Twitter page!!! And senior lie about)

              2. Obama held up military aid to Egypt, although he did eventually release it. So, by your reasoning, Obama broke the law and should have been impeached

                He informed Congress
                http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/20/official-u-s-temporarily-holds-up-some-military-aid-to-egypt/

                And it was not done to pressure a foreign government to help him get re-elected.

                Anything else?.

                1. Thank you. This misinformation is so difficult to combat sometimes. One person can’t research every single false claim these people are talking about.

                  1. I sometimes think there’s an automated machine, creating and spewing this stuff. A machine with orange hair.

                    You do quite well at correcting with facts!

                    If you don’t know, 80-90% of readers in online comments never post. Those are the libertarians. Some too shy. Here, many are likely scared of being assaulted by the alt-right Thought Police.

            3. The Guarantee was still a thing of value no?

              1. Yes, but the lie keeps saying it was taxpayer funds by Biden/Obama/EU/IMF, to create a false equivalence to Trump’s actual crime. He did day they’d lie to defend him of even cold blooded murder, and many seem proud of such a degrading insult.

      2. Dude….I know that VA was off-topic. I get that. But what is happening in VA right now is pretty incredible. There are 95 counties in VA, and 80 of them have voted to become 2A sanctuaries. My prediction is the VA legislature is going to have very significant turnover in the next election.

        1. How is that incredible.

          1. It means a lot more land will be voting red. Once we concentrate lefties to major cities the minorities who were promised everything but received nothing will begin to take them out, thus completing the circle of progressive policy.

            I look forward to watching journalists live tweet their final thoughts

            1. Why do you think VA apportions state delegates and senate seats by land? Do they do that in your state? I live in VA and gun control was THE issue that Democrats ran on during the 2019 election, and they took over both houses for the first time since the Solid South went GOP. Your prediction is off base. You don’t know what VA is about anymore.

                1. Probably a more rational response than the poster could summon.

      3. “The president’s job is to execute the law, not make it.”

        Tell THAT to the previous Imperator and his Magick Phone and Pen.

        1. Trump has signed more executive orders than Obama.

          1. Numbers ain’t the issue.

            Substance and Constitutionality is.

            1. So, you NOW you agree with libertarians — Trump and Obama are equally evil.

              1. Not even close, psycho bully

                1. ANOTHER fuckup by Nardz, the psycho bully,.

                  What he said is … PAY ATTENTION … “Numbers ain’t the issue. Substance and Constitutionality is.”

                  When the thread included executive orders by BOTH Obama and Trump.

                  If numbers ain’t the issue, and they both did it, then .,.. THEY’RE EQUALLY GUILTY!!

                  (Even that may have sailed over his “head”)

                  1. A lot of Trump’s EOs were to repeal 0blama’s unconstitutional ones.
                    Those don’t really count in a grand total.

                    1. You’re full of shit again.
                      As PROVEN by MJBinAL.

                      Or give examples. Your constant WHINING doesn’t really count in the grand total.

        2. Tell THAT to the previous Imperator and his Magick Phone and Pen.

          NONE of which have ANYTHING to do with “making:” law. What Obama SAID starts at 2:10 here.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-DR9G-DLXk

          The ISSUE is improper use of Executive Orders. And Trump never bragged what HE would do … at a nationally televised cabinet meeting. Instead, he actually released what he FALSELY called a transcript .. which showed him doing what he denied doing. About as dumb as Don Jr releasing emails showing that he KNOWINGLY conspired with the Russian GOVERNMENT, to damage Hillary and elect his father, NOT the brightest bulbs on the tree!

          1. What are you rambling on about Hihn?
            Why don’t yo take some good advice and FUCK OFF!

            1. What are you rambling on about Hihn?

              EVIDENCE that he’s full of shit, chump.

              1. Still confused, retiredfire?
                AT 2:1O IN THE LINKED VIDEO.
                Proves HIM full of shit. YOU volunteered to be full of shit. Or fucking illiterate.
                Or both.

      4. “Look at these things that actually matter.”

        “DAT’S WHATABOUTISMS!”

      5. So Pedo Jeffy has officially surrendered any argument he might ever have.

    3. 2A isn’t really an important issue to libertarians.

      1. Well, I know of one “libertarian” that becomes unHihnged over the 2nd Amendment.

        1. Are you just trying to make “The List” or something?

          1. Already on it.

            1. If you ain’t on the list, you ain’t nuthin

              1. Is it still up?
                I could not find it the other day …

                1. No idea.
                  I’m not visiting that crackpot’s website.
                  Last I checked was probably summer 2018, satisfied to have earned a spot

      2. 2A isn’t really an important issue to libertarians.

        Translation: R Mac is pissed … PISSED .,… that libertarians UNDERSTAND 2A (most of us) better than hopelessly manipulated guntards do.

        1. A) You aren’t libertarian
          B) You don’t know shit
          C) Take that out-of-context Scalia quote you’ve been treating as the Last Word from God and shove it up your own ass.

          Don’t you have some fellow patients you can molest?

          1. A) You aren’t libertarian

            Here’s the proof you’re a lying sack of shit. The web archive of my published writing. Check the ones on taxes, health care and federal deficit/budget, since you’ve made a total public ass of yourself … BWAAA HAAAA HAAAA
            http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

            C) Take that out-of-context Scalia quote you’ve been treating as the Last Word from God and shove it up your own ass.Tell is what the fuck your screeching about, so I can jam THAT up your sorry ass … also with proof

            (boldface in self-defense of unprovoked assault by a crazed psycho and PROVEN liar,)

            1. A) You aren’t libertarianHOW WOULD YOU KNOW. THUG .., WHEN THE FIRST-PRINCIPLE FOR LIBERTARIANISM IS … NON-AGGRESSION… AND YOU JUST LAUNCHED UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION … WHICH MAKES YOU A CRAZED CONSERVATARD, WHO HAVE HATED LIBERTARIANS FOR 50 YEARS. AND HATED LIBERTY FOR CENTURIES.

              I PITY YOU. WE ALL PITY YOUR COMPULSIONS FOR HATRED, BIGOTRY AND THUGGERY

              (Posted in defense of aggression, by a thug who has achieved NOTHING … not one damn thing … a whiny pussy, shaking his fist at the sky)

              (How many other assholes will now punish me for speaking truth to power … again?)

          2. A) You aren’t libertarian

            Bend over, dumbfuck, while I cram MORE proof up your PATHETIC ass. (sneer)

            NEWSPAPER REPORT — WASHINGTON STATE’S LARGEST NEWSPAPER. — THE SEATTLE TIMES — MY LIBERTARIAN PARTY CAMPAIGN FOR STATE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER …. CHUMP

            http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000905&slug=4040641

            INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
            ….
            Mike Hihn
            Libertarian
            Campaign theme: Freedom works!

            1. What would you do to make prescription drugs more affordable?

            There are two prices involved: drugs and insurance. Deregulating health insurance will greatly increase the number of insured families. But drug prices would be beyond my control, and another candidate seems to agree. He would form nongovernmental buying co-ops. Great idea, but why must we elect him first?

            *********2. What would you do to make health insurance more affordable and available for individual consumers?

            Deregulate. Open your Yellow Pages. Compare the number of health insurers with the number of auto and home insurers. Then ask yourself which insurance is the most highly regulated – but offers the fewest choices, with out-of-control prices. As you can see, over-regulation is hazardous to your health.

            3. What changes are needed to protect insurance consumers’ privacy?

            Insurers have legitimate concerns regarding fraudulent health histories from applicants. But insurance applicants can now be forced to choose between living and lying when new jobs require them to change carriers. Deregulate for portable coverage.

            ***YOUR TURN … WHAT THE FUCK HAVE YOU EVER DONE … EXCEPT BELLOW AND SCREECH … VIOLATE THE LIBERTARIAN NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE WITH UNPROVOKED ASSAULTS … AND MAKE AN ALL AROUND JACKASS OF YOURSELF.

            ***(SNEER)***

            (How many OTHER right-wing thugs will THIS “trigger” … and what have THEY ever done???)

    4. Well, we better go back and prosecute every president since 1974. When has any president, before and after 1974 ever been prosecuted for not spending money Congress earmarks. Let’s get real. This article is nothing but a ridiculous hit piece. Go find real crimes by investigating Rep. Omar, etc.

      1. Who’s arguing for prosecution? I’ll settle for impeachment and removal.

        1. When was the last time a President was impeached and removed for not spending money Congress earmarks?

          1. If you think that’s the issue here ,… I feel sorry for you.

              1. (sneer)
                THE ISSUE IS AN ABUSE OF POWER, THREATENING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT UNLESS THEY INTERFERE IN OUR 2020 ELECTION, ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT.

                AS PUTRID AN ABUSE AS HIS FUCKING LIE, THAT HIS NEO-NAZI AND RACIST SUPPORTERS WERE THE VICTIMS OF MASS VIOLENCE AT CHARLOTTESVILE … WHEN THEY ARE PROVEN AS THE ATTACKERS … A TOTAL DISGRACE TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.

                *** Do YOU join Trump’s SHAMEFUL defense of fucking neo-nazis and white supremacists (your COMRADES on the alt-right)?

          2. Never, but withholding money to extort a foreign government into investigating a political opponent to influence an election seems impeachment-worthy.

            At least, the Founders thought so.

            1. So odd he forgot to tell the Ukrainians that’s what he was doing…

              1. HIS ENTITRE STAFF KNEW .. IT WAS IN THE PHONY “TRANSCTRIPT” OF HIS CALL … AND HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY DELIVERED THE EXPLICIT THREAT.

                While you BRAG of being a jerk! (smirk)

              2. He didn’t. The Ukrainians were getting this message for months from Trump’s cronies.

                How can you not know this?

          1. Says the slimy coward, with the mind of a 15-year-old.

      2. Well, we better go back and prosecute every president since 1974. When has any president, before and after 1974 ever been prosecuted for not spending money Congress earmarks

        No examples, and we all know why.

        Let’s get real.

        Then you go TOTALLY bonkers!

        This article is nothing but a ridiculous hit piece.

        (sneer) Does it LIE about the GAO report?

        Even CRAZIER:

        Go find real crimes by investigating Rep. Omar, etc.

        Are you also a Birther?

        Hence the label. “Trumptards”

          1. FAILS to challenge a single word.
            Lobs an infantile insult to punish the truth
            Goobers HATE IT when I’m right. But there’s NOTHING they can do about it ,,, because they know so little. About anything. Except bellowing. And screeching.

            1. Ahhh, NOW I see what caused his hissy fit.
              I called out Fancylad’s TOTAL bullshit … here:

              https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8090305

              (sneer)

              1. Fuck off, Hihn. You ban evading piece of shit.

                1. There is no ban, you crazy asshole.
                  There were 13 bans … all removed under threat of legal action.

                  WHINY PUSSY, BECAUSE I PROVED YOU FULL OF SHIT ON THE GAO REPORT.

                  https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8090305

                  1. There were 13 bans … all removed under threat of legal action.

                    WTF are you on about you lunatic? Anyone else want to interpret what he just said?

                    Anyway, you *were* banned. Stop denying reality you nutcase — all of your old posts have been shitcanned.

                    1. Anyway, you *were* banned. Stop denying reality you nutcase

                      THAT’S WHAT I SAID. YOU CRAZED PSYCHO … YOU EVEN QUOTED ME SAYING IT!!! NOBODY could INVENT anything as stupid as that!!

                      Anyone else want to interpret what he just said? whooooooooooooooooooooooosh
                      You even fucking lied about … my words THAT YOU QUOTED

                      Sorry, but NOBODY can dumb it down to your lying-sack-of-shit level

                      Fuck off, Hihn. You ban evading piece of shit.

                      AGAIN proving you a lying sack of shit. (gleeful smirking)

                    2. all of your old posts have been shitcanned.When you BELIEVE psychos, you BECOME a psycho ,… as proven so many times on this page alone.

                    3. CORRECTED

                      all of your old posts have been shitcanned.

                      When you BELIEVE psychos, you BECOME a psycho ,… as proven so many times on this page alone.

                      Plus your BLANTANT lie here, on what I said.

            2. Goobers HATE IT when I’m right.

              That’s why they’re living their best life while Dumbfuck Hihnsano manically tries to remain relevant to fill the void in his bankrupt life.

              1. GOOBER PROVES ME CORRECT!

                Goobers HATE IT when I’m right.

              2. That’s why they’re living their best life while Dumbfuck Hihnsano manically tries to remain relevant to fill the void in his bankrupt life.

                BECAUSE I’M RIGHT????
                And you NEVER are!

    5. Shockingly, the president is more newsworthy than a random Bernie staffer, no matter the thickness of his beard or glasses.

      1. GREAT SATIRE!!

        1. Thank you, but can you please stop yelling?

          1. THAT’S NOT YELLING
            As you’ll learn from English Comp, in high school.
            And attacking people for praising you seems kinda ,., wacky. But I shall not withdraw my praise. I’m far too good for that,

            1. I’m not trying to attack you. I think you’ve brought up a lot of great points here, and you’re right on the substance more often than not. However, some constructive criticism I’d give is that your tone is turning people off. The use of caps lock is unnecessary, for instance.

  2. *nobody* expects the Impoundment Control Act of 1974!

    1. Not even the GAO initially, who had to twist the facts and the act into knots to make this conclusion. The coup creeps on.

      Of course if Suderman wasn’t such a dishonest fuck, he’d point out the disingenuous nature of the GAO’s “interpretation”, but he won’t because it runs against the narrative.

      1. I thought GAO lost all credibility w/O-Care I’m surprised it’s back with a vengeance and cite-worthy.

        1. Meanwhile in other impartial media, the GAO is being described as “non-partisan”. There’s a war on, no one is non-partisan. There’s pro-Trump, there’s anti-Trump, and there’s None of Your Goddam Business (which doesn’t mean “undecided”). This isn’t “How do you feel about Bud Light?”.

        2. “The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is a legislative branch government agency that provides auditing, evaluation, and investigative services for the United States Congress.[2] It is the supreme audit institution of the federal government of the United States. It identifies its core “mission values” as: accountability, integrity, and reliability.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office
          First of all, where does the Constitution allow for this unelected and unaccountable separate branch of government to exist?
          Second, it’s it’s been doing it’s job effectively, why do we have about $212 TRILLION of unfunded obligations?

          1. The GAO is funded by the House of Representatives and will conclude whatever whoever is in control of the House wants them to conclude.

            1. Precisely. They arrived at the conclusion they were directed to arrive at. That’s all, it’s just a press release from the impeachment crowd.

              1. NO DUMBFUCK, IT’S NOT A PRESS RELEASE,
                But, we all know you simply cannot help yourself from fuckups like that,

            2. Correction: The GAO is staffed by bureaucrats (the deep state), whose goal is to preserve government, thus always works against conservative and libertarian policies of reducing the size thereof.
              In the words of William J. Le Pétomane; “We’ve got to protect our phony bologna jobs, gentlemen!”

            3. Look at who runs the GAO. It’s bizarre. The Comptroller General runs it, and he’s appointed by the President, but he can’t be fired by the President, unlike every other executive branch appointed office,

              The last two guys have been on the job since 1996, which was the last year a Republican appointee ran it. The Clinton appointee quit when Obama got elected, so he could hand the job off to a Democrat. The current guy holds the job until he wants to quit. It’s a lifetime appointment. And, unsurprisingly, the GAO since 1996 has trashed Republican policies as fiscally unsustainable while praising Democrat policies as economically self-sufficient.

              The Trump administration should sue over it as a violation of the separation of powers.

          2. See Nathaniel Benchley’s comic novel about the GAO, “Is the United States Ready for Self Government?”

            1. Sorry, Robert Saffron, not Nathaniel Benchley.

              1. NOVELS ARE FICTION

          3. Second, it’s it’s been doing it’s job effectively, why do we have about $212 TRILLION of unfunded obligations?

            That’s NOT their job, dumbass.
            Now, your NEXT TOTAL FUCKUP …

            First of all, where does the Constitution allow for this unelected and unaccountable separate branch of government to exist?

            IT’S NOT A SEPARATE BRANCH, DUMBASS … PER YOUR OWN FUCKINNG WORDS, DIPSTICK … “The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is a legislative branch government agency

            THAT MEANS IT’S AN AGENCY WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ,.. THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IS CREATED AND DEFINED BY OUR … CONSTITUITON! … AND WHY MUST I EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU????

            (Is it just the Reason commentariat, or are ALL Trump defenders as retarded as what we see here? Trumptards! Bernie’s and Elizabeth’s are just as retarded, for the same reason … programmed puppets dancing on a string, EAGERLY controlled by the political elites.)

        3. GAO lost credibility with the Democrats and American Left with “Internet Firearm Sales: ATF Enforcement Efforts and Outcomes of GAO Covert Testing”GAO contradicted gun control advocates claims that most on-line gun sellers were willing to violate the law. (I know, That is not GAO interpreting the constitutionality of a law. It was a different thing than their opinion on OMB here.) GAO conducted a sting trying to get people on-line to sell to buyers posing as prohibited persons (couldn’t pass a NICS check at a dealer or trying to buy a gun out-of-state). What was the credibility of that report with Democrats/left wingers/Bloomberg worshippers? GAO has credibility only if it’s something they want to hear.

          1. It sounds like you’re saying that the GAO produced an accurate report about gun sales, but because a few Democrats didn’t believe it, nobody should accept anything the GAO says… Even by the low standards of internet comment boards, that’s some weak logic dude.

        4. Explain how the GAO “lost all credibility” concerning ” O-care” without losing all credibility yourself. I double dare you.

      2. I again take great joy in exposing the crazed bullshit of a Trumptard … which is SO easy to do!

        Not even the GAO initially, who had to twist the facts and the act into knots to make this conclusion. The coup creeps on.

        HERE’S THE ACT, GOOBER!

        Of course if Suderman wasn’t such a dishonest fuck, he’d point out the disingenuous nature of the GAO’s “interpretation”, but he won’t because it runs against the narrative.

        YOU POINT IT OUT, WHILE WE NON-[UPPETS LAUGH A

          1. What happens when you call out a liar … a hate-spewing mongrel … and a coward … WITH PROOF!

            Fuck off, Hihn.

            Make me, punk.

            YOU FUCKING LIED ABOUT THE GAO REPORT … TWICE, LOSER.

            1. FUCK OFF HIHN!

              1. The SICK FUCK comes back to repeat his thuggery, EVERY EIGHT HOURS.

                Just because he was PROVEN full of shit on the GAO report.

                Psychopath (SNEER)

  3. Wasn’t the money spent by the deadline prescribed by Congress?

    1. Yes it was. Here is the bottom line from the GAO decision

      OMBwithheld from obligation some foreign military financing (FMF) funds for a period of six days.

      GAO is claiming that withholding funds for six days amounts to a violation of the impoundment act. That is complete an utter bullshit. If he had withheld it for months or just not spent it within the time it was appropriated, it would be a violation. But that is not what happened here.

      1. A judge can make that determination = did POTUS Trump actually break a law.

        I guess I have a more basic question: Who has standing to sue? No one was injured, right?

        1. No one has standing to sue. And the GAO does not have the final say on what the law means. It is a GAO opinion. It is not legally binding. Generally the executive follows GAO opinions and if you are some bureaucrat out in the sticks, a slap on the wrist from the GAO can be a big deal. But, they are not a court and their decisions are only enforceable as far as the executive wants to make them.

          1. Right, I was thinking to myself, ‘No big deal. The money was sent. So any breach of law was cured’. Sounds like more ‘Resistance’, which is now seditious, IMHO.

            1. It is like an anti deficiency act violation, which is the opposite of an impoundment. There you spend money you are not authorized to spend. What happens is they go and take money that is proper an spend it and make the account that was improperly used whole again. Even though violating the anti deficiency act is an actual crime, no one has ever been prosecuted for violating it. The impoundment act isn’t even a criminal statute.

            2. Libertarians for gulags! Releasing a legal opinion that the president broke the law is ‘seditious’! All hail Trump!

              1. A legal opinion is not what you think it is. The qualifier “legal” doesn’t mean you can spew whatever bullshit you want. Unlike regular opinions, legal opinions have objective merits that can be measured.

                The GAO’s “legal” opinion is meritless drivel.

              2. “Libertarians for gulags! Releasing a legal opinion that the president broke the law is ‘seditious’! All hail Trump!”

                DOL is rarely coherent, so this is no real surprise.

              3. Good traitor. At least you finally show some support for our good president.

            3. Seditious? I think we’ve heard all we need from you. Fuck off, slaver.

        2. If the law says, ” you must spend this money by this date” and you did in fact, spend the money by that date, you did not break the law.

          This is not really very complicated.

          Officer: “this is a school zone and the law says you must reduce speed to 25 MPH between the hours of 8:00AM and 2:00PM Monday through Friday when school is in session.”
          Driver: “It is 6:00PM Sunday night!”
          Judge: “Case Dismissed”

          See how that works?

          1. See how that works?

            I saw you lie about the law.

      2. Yet, I bet John has a raging fit every time his Amazon delivery of Big’Uns magazine is one day late.

      3. OH, NOES!
        “A SHARPLY WORDED LETTER” !!!111!!!111!!!111!!!1111!!!

      4. “GAO is claiming that withholding funds for six days amounts to a violation of the impoundment act.”

        The GAO have anything to say about withholding Articles of Impeachment?

        1. IT’S PROVEN BULLSHIT, SUCKER, ABOUT THE FUNDS BEING DELAYED FOR SIX DAYS … BEING THE ISSUE HERE,

          Proof is here, linked to the source.
          https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8090319

          John was a bat-shit crazy bullshitter again.

      5. It wasn’t six days. It was 55.

      6. JOHN IS A LYING SACK OF SHIT … AGAIN!

        Yes it was. Here is the bottom line from the GAO decision.

        OMBwithheld from obligation some foreign military financing (FMF) funds for a period of six days.

        SHAME ON YOU. THAT’S A SEPARATE ISSUE, YOU COCKSUCKER. FROM THE TOP OF PAGE EIGHT. AND THE REST OF THE VERY LONG PARAGRAPH ALSO PROVES YOU FULL OF SHIT.

        We also question actions regarding funds appropriated to State for security assistance to Ukraine. In a series of apportionments in August of 2019, OMB withheld from obligation some foreign military financing (FMF) funds for a period of
        six days.

        Here’s the TRUTH – (Page 3)

        On July 25, 2019, OMB issued the first of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes withholding USAI funds from obligation.

        1) NINE delays
        2) USAI funds are SEPARATE from the funds you LIED about

        MORE PROOF THAT TRUMPOSTERS ARE TOTALLY CONTROLLED BY CRAZED CONSPIRACY THEORIES … ALL EVOLVING FROM THE PSYCHOTIC BITHERISM.

        Yes, every bit as loony as Bernie’s and Elizabeth’s puppets.
        Left – Right = Zero

          1. The home is gonna have to put him on restrictions again, he’s getting all worked up

          2. I provide DOCUMENTED PROOF.
            Goobers, well, they be goobers … and punish proven facts
            Fancylad
            Fuck off, Hihn.

            Nardz
            The home is gonna have to put him on restrictions again, he’s getting all worked upWhere “getting worked up” means providing proof … instead of a hissy fit.

            THIS IS TRUMP’S BASE! 🙁

            1. THIS IS TRUMP’S BASE!

              I can’t be, I’m a Canadian you spastic fuck.

              Also: Fuck off, Hihn.

              1. THIS IS TRUMP’S BASE!

                I can’t be, I’m a Canadian you spastic fuck.

                BASE CAN INLUDE MEANS SUPPORTERS .. NOT JUST VOTERS … SO YOUR STUPID DUMBFUCKERY NOW EXCEEEDS FORTY ,… ON THIS PAGE ALONE.

                I’ve lived and worked in Canada — Winnipeg and Toronto. You are a DISGRACE to Canadian culture … and far crazier by Canadian standards

                Back to the core issue … the PROOF is described here … with PAGE NUMBERS to simplify seeing how psycho they are .. TRUMP’S BASE … with your own eyes.
                https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8090319

        1. Oh, dear. Nine days!

          Was it delivered by the statutory deadline? Why, yes, it was.

          Therefore the law was not violated.

          1. FUCKING STUPID

            1. Why don’t you rebut what he said before you go molest some of your fellow patients?

              Because he’s right — the money was delivered. Idiot.

              1. Behold the psychopathic liar, Freddy the Jerk

                Because he’s right — the money was delivered. Idiot

                ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP.
                THIS IS WHERE HE WAS BAT-SHIT CRAZY .,.. AND NOW YOU

                Therefore the law was not violated.

                As always, Trumptards scurry around like cockroaches … all repeating the same blatant bullshit … as programmed by political elites. Puppets on a string.

                Nobody with an independent mind swallows their OBVIOUS bullshit, but that’s okay … they do it to comfort and support their (losing) cause. Like hugs.

                1. Too busy with the ass-rape threats to do that rebuttal? The money was delivered, no?

                  1. He had already proved it here ..

                    https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8090319

                    even citing the page number … for the more thoughtful readers. Check the link to see how massive your blunder is.

                    He may have been extreme. calling you a psychopathic liar, You’re simply ignorant, and failed to even read the article here.

                    Too busy with the ass-rape threats to do that rebuttal?

                    But clearly a psychopath.

                    The money was delivered, no?

                    The link I gave you exposes, and proves, your fundamental ignorance … the same blunder repeated by so many ignorant Trump supporters here. The ones who’d lie to defend Trump of even murder.

                    My turn. Why are you so proud to be a jerk??

    2. Wasn’t the money spent by the deadline prescribed by Congress?

      No.

      It was disbursed BEFORE the deadline.

      BEFORE.

      The part I like best is this one–

      In certain circumstances, the executive can delay such spending, but this TYPICALLY requires a letter to Congress offering a justification for the proposed delay.

      See that word there, ‘typically’? It’s in caps and bolded. It was included because Suderman knows full well that his leftist cronies have done the same damned thing–and, when they did it, it was praised.

        1. Nothing in that wikipedia article says that. I know you don’t read well but do you even try to read the links you post? Ever?

          1. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days.

            I don’t know the specific timeline or whether Trump violated the 45 days. But it does seem to be a requirement based on the reading of that passage (which is cited from a GAO document that I don’t care to read).

            1. I recission is not the same thing as withholding funds. A recission is deciding not to spend the money at all. Withholding funds in this context is delaying the spending of the funds for some time short of the appropriations period running out.

              That section you quote gives the President the power to not spend the funds at all if he notifies Congress and Congress approves. That is not what happened here.

              1. Recission is the same as withholding. Recission is a noun which applies to the law congress passed which requires spending by a certain date. If the president does not spend by that date, he has rescinded the spending law. The president does not get to delay or revoke any congressionally mandated spending period.

                1. Nothing was withheld, it was upheld for reviews pursuant to corruption and other reviews that Congress has obligated the executive to do prior. This was normal OMB processes per OMB testimony, which you have apparently refused to read.

                  1. “Nothing was withheld, it was upheld for reviews pursuant to corruption and other reviews that Congress has obligated the executive to do prior.”

                    No, that’s not how this works. First, there were no reviews for corruption–the aid was released only after the whistleblower came forward. Second, the “corruption” has to be actually related to the funds in some way–there has to be evidence that the funds will be used in some kind of illegal or corrupt manner. There is absolutely no logical connection between military aid to fight Russia’s invasion and an investigation into Joe and Hunter Goddamn Biden. Absolutely none. Third, no actual anti-corruption measures were asked for. Trump only demanded investigations into the Bidens and (lol) Crowdstrike (which has shit-all to do with Ukraine, the man is just mind-poisoned), and literally no other anti-corruption reforms. That means he was only concerned with spreading conspiracy theories that would benefit his political narrative, not ending corruption in Ukraine.

                    Continuing to argue that this was legitimately about fighting corruption rather than political gain is just embarrassing at this point. You are embarrassing yourselves.

                    1. “You are embarrassing yourselves.”

                      Lol

                    2. About the level of rebuttal expected from a guy named Nardz.

                    3. About the level of rebuttal tired DNC talking points are worth

                2. Is a recission decision
                  A withholding admission?
                  Does this news from the GAO
                  Rival that of Galileo?
                  Has Trump broken the law,
                  Is this a bone we can gnaw?
                  Will our hearts turn more frigid,
                  Or our members more rigid?
                  Or will we shrivel from boredom
                  From this partisan whoredom?

                  1. Nothing you e ever said is funny, insightful, or in the least bit interesting, eunuch.
                    Nobody likes you, and your life has no value

                    1. His local liquor store loves him.

                    2. Doubtful.
                      They may take his money, but, like everyone else, I’m sure they loathe his existence.
                      Think about how painful it must be interacting with his desperate ass, even just through checkout

                  2. I found it mildly amusing. These guys just don’t appreciate decent rhymes.

                3. “ an act of canceling or voiding; cancellation”

                  Delaying is not canceling, no matter how your retarded brain twists it.

            2. the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days.

              He didn’t rescind the funds.

              Recission is the same as withholding. Recission is a noun which applies to the law congress passed which requires spending by a certain date.

              “Recission” is a noun that refers to the act of rescinding

              Witholding is NOT the same thing. At all.

              If you withhold funds they are still there, may still be released. If you rescind funds they go back to where they came from and are not available for future release.

              You ARE the weakest link. Good bye.

          2. He’s Canadian, you can’t expect him to understand American.

            1. I’m American.

                1. Actually that is the closest he’s come to honesty in a long time.

                  Canada being part of North America…

              1. “I’m American.

                And a fucking lefty ignoramus besides.

          3. Wiki is an even worse source of legal analysis than GAO, so he has that going for him.

          4. Who gives a flying FUCK what you say, John?

            You were PROVEN a blatant liar … AGAIN … this time on the contents of the GAO Report … where the lying sack of shit INVENTED WORDS THAT DO NOT EXIST THERE!

            https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8090319

            Sick? Pathetic? John!

        2. E-MOLLY-ENTS CLAWS!!!
          E-MOLLY-ENTS CLAWS!!!
          E-MOLLY-ENTS CLAWS!!!

          1. Just because Trump campaigned on a 60% tax cut for HIMSELF.
            He’d have been a billionaire, paying an income tax rate of 15%
            What’s your rate, sucker?

            And what does your screeching have to do with any issue here?

      1. Had President Trump not been elected, we would never have known just how evil and corrupt the Democrats in Congress really are!

        President Trump stands up for what’s best for all Americans and we should stand up for him!

        America First!

          1. Trump — the LYING SACK OF SHIT — who said his beloved nazis and racists were the VICTIMS at Charlottesville.

            But, how would either of you know the truth.
            Correcction, lc1789 has SEEN the proof, several times, so he (or she) is obviously also a nazi-racist defender.

              1. Did I “trigger” my stalker’s “safe zone” again?
                Did he also stick his tongue out at me?

                TRUMP IS PROVEN FULL OF SHIT ON CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHUMP … bellowing “FUCK OFF” cannot change reality. It’s STILL true. (smirk)

            1. Between Charlottesville and Scalia you really are getting tiresome.

              Get a new schtick.

              1. UP YOUR ASS FREDDY … AGAIN … ALL WITH DOCUMENTED PROOF. (sneer

                Charlottesville!. When YOUR President LIED to defend YOUR favorite people: neo- nazis and white nationalists. ABSOLUTE PROOF!

                LIE: In press conference, Trump says alt-left initiate he assaults, charging his alt-right base, swinging clubs.

                The actual video …Trump’s own voice … stating a PROVEN lie at press conference… as the snotty punk he is.

                “What about the alt left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt right? Do they have any assemblage of guilt? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”

                Trump lied … shamelessly — to defend Nazi and racist assaults. SHOUTS DOWN news media – as he always does when guilty. Calls them LIARS. “I watched it all on television … SO DID YOU.”

                BULLSHIT. Nobody watched it. NO news cameras at the assault. News reports broadcast what they called “personal videos” (cell phone videos). None recorded the actual assault.

                Next, UNDENIABLE PROOF Trump is a lying sack of shit

              2. Part Two

                VIDEO PROOF: The initial assault</b.. (Private video found on an alternate news twitter feed)

                “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
                Alt-Right Fascists/Racists charge en masse, swinging clubs.
                Fascists carrying police-style riot shields. The assholes CAME for violence.

                SHAME ON ANYONE who LIES about the truth, to defend a morally debased President, over country and honor.

                TRUMPSHIT: Alt-left initiated violence. PROOF: Alt-right
                TRUMPSHIT: Wearing black helmets. PROOF: Alt-right.
                TRUMPSHIT: Charged with clubs PROOF: Alt-right
                Trump saw it personally on TV! PROOF: Obama born in Kenya. (snort)

                ***So … JERK … will YOU accept such ABSOLUTE AND UNDENIABLE PROOF … or refuse to … as a dutiful SLAVE?

                *** To what are you most loyal?
                a) America
                b) Cheap partisan tribalim of an obedient serf?

                NEXT: THE SMOKING GUN.

              3. Part Three …. KAPOW :

                4 men found guilty in violent Charlottesville rally described as ‘serial rioters’ …. by Trump’s own DOJ!!!

                Three members of a white supremacist group were sentenced to prison Friday for kicking, choking and punching multiple people during the 2017 “United the Right” rally in Charlottesville and other rallies in California. The three were members of the California-based militant white supremacist organization “Rise Above Movement.”

                A fourth defendant, Cole Evan White, will be sentenced at a later date, the attorney’s office said.

                “These defendants, motivated by hateful ideology, incited and committed acts of violence in Charlottesville, as well at other purported political rallies in California,” U.S. Attorney Thomas T. Cullen said.

                “They were not interested in peaceful protest or lawful First Amendment expression; instead, they intended to provoke and engage in street battles with those that they perceived as their enemies.”

                This is now being converted to a Press Release, sent to all major media outlets, with all evidence … and to the House and Senate impeachment committees … when the timing is right.

                Watch this thread. I shall be for punished proving facts.
                Trump’s not the only fucking psycho on the alt-right.

              4. Between Charlottesville and Scalia you really are getting tiresome.

                I ASK YOU AGAIN TO BE SPECIFIC ON YOUR SCALIA WHINING .,.. SO I CAN JAM THAT UP YOUR PATHETIC ASS, TOO .. ALSO DOCUMENTED WITH LINKS TO ORIGINAL SOURCES..

                PUT UP OR SHUT UP, COWARDLY PUSSY

        1. President Trump stands up for what’s best for all Americans

          Only WHITE Americans … who are NOT Jewish

          After Charlottesville, your fucking hero LIED to defend VICIOUS MASS ASSAULTS AND MURDER .,.. INITIATED BY NEO-NAZIS AND WHITE NATIONALISTS.

          HOW DARE YOU DEFEND SUCH MORAL DEBAUCHERY?

      2. Before the 2016 election, QPQ Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion of U.S. Loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders didn’t fire their top prosecutor who was investigating his son, Hunter!

        Hunter Biden received millions from China, Russia and Ukraine! He was paid $80,000 per month to sit on the Board of a Ukrainian energy company!

        Were Joe’s and Hunter’s overlapping interests in Ukraine criminal?

        Somebody needs to check this out!

        1. “Before the 2016 election, QPQ Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion of U.S. Loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders didn’t fire their top prosecutor who was investigating his son, Hunter!”

          None of this is true. The prosecutor was not investigating Hunter. He wasn’t even investigating Hunter’s company. He wasn’t even investigating corruption at all, which is why the IMF, the EU,. the Obama administration, and even Republicans in Congress wanted him gone. Your conspiracy theory only makes sense if you believe all of those groups were out to save Hunter Biden. Even you are not that stupid, so it’s time to abandon this discredited conspiracy theory.

          “Somebody needs to check this out!”

          If the president still thinks so–which, as noted above, is incredibly stupid–then the appropriate “somebody” would be the DOJ, not a foreign government that the president has already declared corrupt. Trump’s defense relies on the conflicting ideas that Ukraine is too corrupt to receive military aid, but trustworthy enough to run a fair investigation into the Bidens. This is incoherent, and thus anyone defending Trump on this is incredibly stupid. Stop being stupid.

          1. “Stop being stupid.”

            Lol
            Watching the internal monologue of leftists as they disintegrate is hilarious

        2. Another brainwashed fool!

          Before the 2016 election, QPQ Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion of U.S. Loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders didn’t fire their top prosecutor who was investigating his son, Hunter!

          That same demand was made by ALL of Europe AND the IMF, sucker …

          Would YOU cosign a loan for THE worst credit risk on the planet?
          Would YOU risk American taxpayer dollars on the worst credit risk on the planet?

          The EU also refused to co-sign, for the same reason.

          if Ukraine’s leaders didn’t fire their top prosecutor who was investigating his son, Hunter!

          There was no such investigation, fool. The company had been investigated — in the past, but NOTHING at the time.

          It’s really sad how eager you people (and Bernie’s people) are, to be brainwashed.

          1. This does not comport with what the prior prosecutor has said. Nor does it comport with what the current prosecutor has said.

            The current prosecutor has said that the two ongoing investigations were not moving before he took over, and he saw them through to completion, issuing small fines.

            Now, you can spin this two ways. The prior prosecutor was indeed corrupt, as Biden claimed. And in being corrupt, he was holding bogus investigations over companies’ heads. Probably for bribes.

            Or, the prior prosecutor was not corrupt. He was investigating as he says he was, but being stonewalled. When he was replaced, the new prosecutor dutifully swept the whole thing under the rug as he was intended to do.

            Either way… Burisma was paying Biden Jr. for something. They were paying high ranking officials and relatives of high ranking officials in all of those countries you cite as proof that the prosecutor was corrupt.

            None of these facts are in dispute. The dispute is “what does it mean”. Biden Jr. was getting paid. So were a lot of very well connected westerners. The question is…. what was Burisma buying? Or what did they think they were buying. It sure as hell wasn’t business acumen.

            I love the claims that this has been debunked, or that this is asserted “without evidence”.

            There is no dispute. Biden Jr. was getting a payoff of some sort. He was paid millions, not for his value as a director, but for something to do with his connections. Nobody seriously claims otherwise. Even Biden Jr. acknowledges as much.

            Biden Sr. makes a braggadocio claim that he got a prosecutor fired all on his own initiative by threatening billions in aid. He makes it clear that he was acting on his own accord. That is his own words – on video no less.

            Now, the defense for this action is “everyone says the prosecutor was corrupt”.

            But that doesn’t explain any of the facts. I seriously doubt that a sitting vice president has ever demanded that the ‘attorney general’ of another country be replaced before. That is pretty far down in the weeds. So why? Why does Biden take such an interest. And why does he take the initiative to start tossing around demands with 6 hour deadlines on money that has already been appropriated?

            Biden claims he didn’t even know that his son worked for Barisma. We know this was a lie, because shortly after he made that claim pictures of Biden, his son and Burisma executives playing golf together surfaced. Nobody is seriously going to claim that Joe’s son has just gotten a multi-million dollar job on the board of directors and he’s playing golf with the senior executives of the company and his dad and “hey, this is the guy who runs the company I’m siting on the board of” doesn’t come up.

            Here’s another question to ask … why does everyone pretend like this is a non issue? Every major news organization routinely claims that this is debunked…. a conspiracy theory. Why would they do that? Not one syllable of it has ever been disproved. Nobody disputes that Junior got paid. Junior personally told us that he did. And junior also personally told us that it was his dad’s position that probably got him the job. And dad personally told us that he, and he alone, threatened to withhold aid in order to get the prosecutor fired.

            The only thing that is missing is someone saying “I told Joe to get the prosecutor fired”…. and there’s no reason to expect it even happened like that. Lobbying usually doesn’t work like that. You pay for access so you can persuade. You don’t just say “here’s 8 million bucks, do as I say”.

            The fact that only one or two media outlets is pursuing this story at all should be really disturbing. Imagine George Bush and Dick Cheney putting pressure on Ukraine like this. Think that nobody would run with that story? Yeah, exactly.

            1. And if the prosecutor was so corrupt that the entire Western establishment wanted him gone (for the good of Ukraine?), then why would it take the threat of withholding money to get the government to act on it?

              Shokin may have been corrupt, and he may have been more or less corrupt than Poroshenko (pretty high bar there…), but that wouldn’t preclude him from doing legitimate investigations.
              Is the claim that ALL he did was corrupt?
              Or was Burisma special? And why didn’t Burisma simply pay him off? And what exactly was he working on when Uncle Joe demanded he be fired?
              If Shokin wasn’t actively investigating Burisma, why did his replacement wrap up the investigation with a slap on the wrist?
              If Shokin was investigating Burisma, what is the basis for claiming corruption?

              1. And if the prosecutor was so corrupt that the entire Western establishment wanted him gone (for the good of Ukraine?), then why would it take the threat of withholding money to get the government to act on it?

                BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T FIRE HIM!
                OF ALL THE DEMANDS MADE, BY THE LENDERS AND COSIGNERS, THAT WAS THE ONLY DEMAND THEY IGNORED.

                Is the claim that ALL he did was corrupt?

                Of course not, silly. How is that relevant?

                Or was Burisma special? And why didn’t Burisma simply pay him off?

                Because there was no investigation!

                And what exactly was he working on when Uncle Joe demanded he be fired?

                IT WAS OBAMA ,.. THE EUROPEAN UNION … AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (the lender)

                You’re obviously ignorant of the most basic elements on this.

            2. Liars be psycho. Always babbling NEVER a source.
              EASILY exposed as a lying sack of shit ,… WITH a source!

              Or, the prior prosecutor was not corrupt. He was investigating as he says he was, but being stonewalled. When he was replaced, the new prosecutor dutifully swept the whole thing under the rug as he was intended to do.

              THE ENTIRE EUROPEAN UNION — AND THE iNTERNATIONAL
              MONETARY FUND .,.,.. ALL CONSPIRED AGAINST TRUMP …. BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED!!

              NEXT … WHY NOBODY SHOULD BELIEVE YOU.

              Biden Sr. makes a braggadocio claim that he got a prosecutor fired all on his own initiative by threatening billions in aid. He makes it clear that he was acting on his own accord. That is his own words – on video no less.

              UNDENIABLE PROOF THAT CYTO IS A LYING SACK OF SHIT … THE ACTUAL VIDEO, LOSER
              BIDEN OPENS BY SAYING “NOT I. That is the assignment I was given.” …. NOT ON HIS OWN ACCORD, PSYCHO
              Near the end (1:31) his “threat” is challenged, “You’re not the President” …. “I said, call him.”

              Why would they do that? Not one syllable of it has ever been disproved.

              ***** I JUST PROVED YOU FULL OF SHIT.

              ALL YOU’VE DONE IS SPEW BULLSHIT — THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF

              The only thing that is missing is someone saying “I told Joe to get the prosecutor fired”…. and there’s no reason to expect it even happened like that.

              FUCK OFF .,.. ASSHOLE ,,., YOU LIED ABOUT WHAT BIDEN SAID, WHILE “BRAGGING” WHAT HE HAD DONE.
              AND I PROVIDED PROOF OF YOUR PATHETIC BULLSHIT.
              WHILE YOU DROOL … and FAIL to address ANY of my questions.
              Where did you paste all that from: Breitbart, Infowars, Daily Caller?

              Trump is not the only psycho liar on the wacky right.
              And the wacky right is as eagerly brainwashed as the wacky left.

              1. Cyto,
                WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID TO ANSWER THESE?

                1) Would YOU cosign a loan for THE worst credit risk on the planet?

                2) Would YOU risk American taxpayer dollars on the worst credit risk on the planet?

              2. Cyto,
                The current prosecutor has said that the two ongoing investigations were not moving before he took over, and he saw them through to completion, issuing small fines.
                Now, you can spin this two ways.

                Three ways. You swallowed another lie.

              3. Ok, you are completely wrong. He said he was assigned the Ukraine relationship. This is how Biden chose to handle it. He 100% makes it clear that withholding the aid and getting the guy fired is his idea. That is the entire point of his braggadocio story. That he, Jo Biden, is so much smarter at negotiations than all these other guys, and he, Joe Biden had them by the short and curlies and made them dance and jump to his tune when nobody else could. That was the only point of the story. Without that, there is no story.

                It takes an extreme amount of motivated reasoning to come up with a scenario where everything Biden is saying is above board.

                I have actually spun a scenario where the prosecutor was actually corrupt and getting rid of him was actually the right thing to do…. but that still doesn’t make accepting millions in bribes from Barisma via relatives OK. And far from being debunked, every publicly known fact confirms that Biden Junior took a payoff from a well connected foreign company and Biden Senior took actions that benefited that company. There are zero facts that contradict this.

                There are protestations that the prosecutor was actually a bad guy and deserved to be fired. That doesn’t change the story at all. There are protestations that Burisma didn’t want him gone because there was no investigation. Which also doesn’t really change the equation…. we still have millions in payoffs to his closest relative with absolutely no explanation other than junior’s acknowledgement that it was entirely because of who his father is.

                A clip of Biden saying he was assigned responsibility for Ukraine is not a counterfactual. It is another fact that confirms the story. It gives us the beginning of the timeline:
                Biden is put in charge of the Ukraine relationship. Biden junior gets the no-show multimillion dollar job with Burisma. Biden Senior gets Ukraine to fire a problematic prosecutor.

                Look, Biden senior might have been doing his best to do a good job in Ukraine with no ulterior motives. But his son was getting payoffs. That cannot be argued with. The best spin you can put on it is that Junior was supposed to lobby daddy on their behalf… but there was no direct relationship between the payout and any specific action. There is no scenario where it is less dirty than that.

                And the millions reported is awfully high for “get a meeting” level access. You can unequivocally get a meeting with the Veep for thousands in donations – I have been party to just such meetings in the past… no need for millions to do that.

                1. CYTO IS A MASSIVE FUCKING LIAR.
                  I ALREADY POSTED THE PROOF.

                  He 100% makes it clear that withholding the aid and getting the guy fired is his idea. YOU ARE TOTALLY FUCKING INSANE.
                  HERE IS THE PROOF AGAIN YOU SICK FUCK,
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L09X8LTwHIc

                  The entire thing is less than a minute and a half, to see how TOTALLY INSANE Cyto is.

                  AND HE’S NOW CHICKEN-SHIT THREE TIMES ON THIS

                  Cyto,
                  WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID TO ANSWER THESE?

                  1) Would YOU cosign a loan for THE worst credit risk on the planet?

                  2) Would YOU risk American taxpayer dollars on the worst credit risk on the planet?

                2. It is absolutely valid to conclude that Burisma probably hired Hunter Biden to curry favor with Joe Biden and the Obama administration. What there is no evidence of is that they received any actual favor from Joe. In fact, getting Shokin fired was, if anything, bad for Burisma. It’s also not true that Joe said that firing Shokin was his idea. He was bragging about his work on behalf of the Obama administration. That’s been his whole schtick–to cling to Obama for his successes and run away from his failures.

                  Absent any evidence that Joe Biden actually responded to Burisma hiring his son with any sort of corrupt government giveaways to the company, nothing here rises to the level of even necessitating an investigation. Which is why Trump didn’t ask the DOJ to investigate, and instead extorted Ukraine to do so. There is certainly no argument that investigating a politician’s son who got a job he wasn’t qualified for–an extremely common phenomenon, and one that literally all of Trump’s own children have experienced–was so important that it necessitated withholding military aid from an ally meant to help resist an invasion from one of the world’s chief aggressors. Which leaves us with no choice but to conclude that this was personal on Trump’s account, and his motivation was to point to a foreign investigation of Joe Biden in order to create a media narrative.

                  1. Very soubn reasoning, but one error (Trunmptard bullshit)

                    There is certainly no argument that investigating a politician’s son who got a job he wasn’t qualified for

                    That’s usually based on the claim that Hunter had no experience in that industry .,.. typically fucking stupid, for TWO reasons
                    1) Board members are NOT hired for the industry experience, and only a fool would assume otherwise,

                    2) Board members are hired for specific expertise in RUNNING THE COPORATION … managing the people who ARE in the industry.. Hunter is successful as a “venture capitalist” — raising investment capital for corporations… and funding for nonprofits ,.. yet more ignorance by Trump’s cult. NOT your fault,

                    3) Anyone who ass-umes that all of Amazon’s board are computer people … that GM’s board is all auto industry … that Chase Bank’s board are all bankers .. that an energy board is filled with people from energy industries .. is probably stupid enough to qualify as a Trumpster,

                    And it’s THIS fucking obvious. If they hire only within their own industry … AND NOT THEIR COMPETITORS … then … that’s pretty slim pickings! DUH.

                    Businesspeople have known this for centuries. For Trumpsters … just another example of their ignorance … AND inability to reason such self-evident conclusions, to think it through, when mindless attacks are all they can handle. Political hacks are virtually useless, in the real world where actual achievements are created.

                    Loving politics is no better than loving government. Both are driven by power-lust.

                    1. The only credible evidence are the transcripts of Trump’s conversation with Zelensky. He asked Zelensky for a favor but made no demands or threats to withhold money. Regardless of whether he delayed disbursement, unless he communicated a threat, he did not abuse power.

                      No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

                      Trump didn’t draw any money. Unless Trump drew money not appropriated, he did nothing wrong. It doesn’t say he can’t refuse to draw it from the Treasury if appropriated, just can’t withdraw it unless appropriated. There is separation of powers and the President has a certain amount of discretion to disburse appropriated funds when he wishes.

                      No abuse of power, no high crimes, no misdemeanors.

                    2. HOW MANY TIMES CAN BRUCE D REPEAT THE SAME CRAZED FUCKUP???

                      TOO FUCKING STUPID TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTION AND A LAW!!!

                      “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
                      Trump didn’t draw any money.

                      ****PRESIDENTS DON’T MAKE LAWS!

                      ****AND YOU CITED ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION … WHICH DEFINES
                      … THE
                      … FUCKING
                      … LEGISLATIVE
                      … BRANCH,
                      … AND
                      …WHAT
                      … IT
                      …CAN OR MUST
                      … DO

                      ****THE **** PRESIDENT *** IS *** THE *** EXECUTIVE *** BRANCH.

                      Unless Trump drew money not appropriated, he did nothing wrong. It doesn’t say he can’t refuse to draw it from the Treasury if appropriated, just can’t withdraw it unless appropriated.

                      ***THE FUCKING IMPOUND CONTROL ACT!

                      There is separation of powers

                      YOU FUCKED THAT UP TOO … BY APPPLYING ARTICLE ONE TO … THE WRONG FUCKING BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT!!!

                      and the President has a certain amount of discretion to disburse appropriated funds when he wishes.THE IMPOUND CONTROL ACT PROVES YOU WRONG.

                      Plus a half-dozen brazen lies.

                    3. CORRECTION:

                      ****AND YOU CITED ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION

                    4. “The only credible evidence are the transcripts of Trump’s conversation with Zelensky.”

                      NARRATOR: That is not the only credible evidence.

                      “He asked Zelensky for a favor but made no demands or threats to withhold money. Regardless of whether he delayed disbursement, unless he communicated a threat, he did not abuse power.”

                      If you ask for a favor immediately after talking about sending aid, and then you withhold the aid, and literally everyone who works for you knows that you withheld the aid because you didn’t get the favor, and then you send your personal lawyer to communicate to Ukraine that you won’t release the aid until that favor is honored, and then you release the aid after a whistleblower exposes this entire scheme, it’s pretty clear that the favor is tied to the money.

                      It is amazing how much you have to ignore to pretend that this isn’t clear. But that’s what believing nonsense like “the only credible evidence is the transcript” will get you.

      3. You’re crazier than John!

        The part I like best is this one–

        In certain circumstances, the executive can delay such spending, but this TYPICALLY requires a letter to Congress offering a justification for the proposed delay.

        *** THOSE WORDS NEVER APPEAR IN THE GAO LETTER! (vomit)

        But these do!

        The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

        Along with three pages of DETAILED evidence, citing specific letters. Shame on you.

        (Trumptards spew bullshit to hug and console each other, on Trump’s ongoing abuses of power. Tribe above country!)

        1. This is all well and good, IF the money was withheld beyond the statutory date. No law was broken, for the simple reason that the money was spent before the statutory limit.

          You and the GAO may well be angry that it wasn’t paid at the earliest possible moment, but the law does not require that.

              1. Anyone who clicks the link will see you’re full of shit.

                On top of your massive fuckup on the Appropriations Clause … witlessly applying Article 1 (legislative branch) .. to the PRESIDENT (executive branch) ,.. confusing the Constitution wirh the law … and DENYING THE IMPOUND CONTROL ACT .,..which means you NEVER READ ANYTHING ABOUT THIS ,.. and roughly equivalent to DENYING THE EARTH IS ROUND,

                ****LEARN ABOUT THE FUCKING LAW, TO AVOID CRASHING YOUR CLOWN CAR AGAIN.
                https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-control-act-1974-what-it-why-does-it-matter

      4. You’re crazier than John!

        (Azathoth)
        The part I like best is this one–

        In certain circumstances, the executive can delay such spending, but this TYPICALLY requires a letter to Congress offering a justification for the proposed delay.

        *** THOSE WORDS NEVER APPEAR IN THE GAO LETTER! (vomit)

        But these do!

        The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

        Along with three pages of DETAILED evidence, citing specific letters. Shame on you.

        (Trumptards spew bullshit to hug and console each other, on Trump’s ongoing abuses of power. Tribe above country!)

        1. Bitch, if Trump was half the tyrant you claim him to be, you’d already be in a mass grave somewhere.

          1. Ok, so you have a point there. Maybe Trump being a tyrant would not be so bad!

            1. Ok, so you have a point there. Maybe Trump being a tyrant would not be so bad!

              Only if YOU are not one of his servile subjects ,.. should you stop french-kissing his puckered ass.

              HEY, GOOBER, YOU ARE THE ONE PRAISING TYRANNY.
              You finally admit it! (shudder)

              (Actually, genius, you said that Trump being in a grace would be a good idea, which confirms you as about as intelligent as Red Rocks)

          2. Bitch, if Trump was half the tyrant you claim him to be, you’d already be in a mass grave somewhere.

            Fuckstick, how so?

          3. ANOTHER COWARDLY DIVERSION.
            THOSE WORDS DO NOT APPEAR IN THE GAO REPORT.

            EVEN HIGH SCHOOL KIDS ARE TAAUGHT THE PURPOSE OF YOU UNPROVOKED AD HOMINEM ATTACKS. ATTACKING THE SPEAKER IS WHAT ONE DOES WHEN THEY LOSE ON THE ISSUES .,.. WHICH YOU DID HERE, MASSIVELY,

            YOU, BEING TRIBAL, LOST ON THE ISSUE OF GAO CONTENT.
            HAVING FAILED THERE, YOU ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ME .. WHICH IS STUPID BECAUSE .,.. IT ONLY WORKS FOR YOUR OWN TRIBE (WHO ALSO LOST — DUH( ,.. AND FAILS ON THOSE WHO JUDGE BASED ON EVIDENCE AND PROVEN FACTS.

            Plus, again, your comment on mass graves is blatantly irrational.
            (I said the CONTENT, which is NOT an ad hominem, Sparky)

        2. This is a serious question, because I do not know:
          Where did the 1 billion in Ukrainian loan guarantees come from? Was it authorized by congress?
          (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-06/house-passes-1-billion-in-loan-guarantees-to-aid-ukraine)
          and if so
          Did Biden break the law by threatening to withhold it?

          1. Congress passed a law authorizing the loan guarantees,
            They did NOT pass a law REQUIRING the guarantees to be made, REGARDLESS of Ukraine meeting ALL the demands made by the US, EU and IMF (the lender) … when Ukraine was then considered among the worst credit risks on the planet.

            Firing the prosecutor was NOT the only requirement. It’s the only one Ukraine had refused to make … still under the corrupt PRIOR President. Zelensky did not become President until May, 2019 — long afer Obama and Biden were gone.

            How corrupt was the Ukraine President at the time of the loan guarantee negotiations? Well, Ukraine voters replaced him with … A COMEDIAN! … with NO political experience … who said he entered politics solely to bring decent people into power, and change the mood and timbre of Ukraine’s political establishment.
            (WE NEED HIM HERE)

            Ukraine has NO opened a criminal investigation … of Giuliani and Trump’s other cronies, for possibly violating both Ukrainian and international law, by actions Giuliani has already bragged about, Did he break the law? Or was he just bullshitting again?

            1. … NOW opened …

  4. The impoundment act means you have to spend the money within the time that it has been appropriated. If Trump had never spent the money before the end of the physical year, he would have broken the law. But nothing in the impoundment act makes it a crime to delay spending as long as the money is eventually spent.

    By the logic of this GAO opinion, a government contracting officer who delays payment to a government contractor because he is dissatisfied about something is violating the impoundment act. And that is patently absurd.

    The GAO is just wrong here. Sudderman of course doesn’t know anything about the subject and likely wouldn’t understand it if someone tried to explain it to him. But, if he needed any brains for the job, reason wouldn’t have haired him.

    1. They are really grasping on this. He spent the money in the time frame allotted. Their is no disagreement on that. He was within his rights to do not spend the money till he had to. Also he was conducting an investigation or having Ukraine give him something he could have written a letter to congress outlining why he would withhold the aide. This shit is so easy. Reason has lost their mind. Bottom line is the money was allocated and spent withing the time Congress said it had to, those are the facts they are not in dispute as far as I know. They are arguing over state of mind or potential crimes that could have occurred that didn’t and are completely immaterial to anything. Basically they are alleging Trump committed a conspiracy to commit a crime in the future based on supposition and circumstantial evidence. It’s a joke.

      1. It really is. And even if you believe their legal argument, you are left with the “violation” being a six day delay in funding. Sudderman is such a lying piece of shit he never provides any context for what this “violation” is supposed to have been. Nope, Trump violated the law and that is enough. There is nothing you can do except ridicule this shit. It is unworthy of being taken seriously.

        The only thing “serious” about it is that it shows how unreliable and partisan so many government institutions have become.

        1. Not that I believe any of this but could the Senate find him guilty but instead of removal just censure him; maybe take away his Twitter privileges for 6 days, for 6 days he held up the payment? Last part is obviously tongue and check but that would be a great 2 birds 1 stone. I won’t be bombarded by the did you see what Trump tweeted articles and Twitter’s stock would drop for at least those 6 days.

          1. Their options are only convict or acquit, not sentencing. The only sentence is removal (although, with an additional vote, they can add disqualification). Censure is just a reprimand as a show of disapproval and has no practical effect.

        2. Nor any mention that Bush/Bush Jr., Clinton and Obama all 1) looked dismissively at the Act and 2) wanted it rewritten.

          It’s one of those, speed-limit- is -65mph -on-the- highway, and yet even the old people are driving 80 mph.

        3. It wasn’t six days. It was 55.

      2. “”He spent the money in the time frame allotted.””

        If Congress says you must spend the money by X date, and you spend the money by X date, then there is no violation of the law. Trump may have wanted to withhold the money but if he came to his senses at the last moment and released the money by X date, then at the end of the day he met his obligation.

        1. But was it spent *imminently*?!

          1. imminent is the only word that matters in any analysis.

        2. If Congress says you must spend the money by X date, and you spend the money by X date, then there is no violation of the law.

          Only if your stupid enough to believe that about the law … or NEED to believe that bullshit. And you are Tricky Vic!

    2. But, if he needed any brains for the job, reason wouldn’t have haired him.

      You’re confusing Suderman for Robby.

        1. There is a difference?

      1. one hell of a Freudian.

    3. The impoundment act means you have to spend the money within the time that it has been appropriated

      ANOTHER lie.
      But not as wacky as this lie:
      https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8090319

    4. The impoundment act means you have to spend the money within the time that it has been appropriated

      THAT is ALMOST as big a LIE as John’s PROVEN MASSIVE WHOPPER HERE .. where he shamelessly invented an entire paragraph, out of thin air, claiming it was in the GAO Report!

      In fairness, ALL Trumpsters are NOT as psycho as The Donald.

  5. Suderman writes this sort of stuff to protect his wife’s job at the Post. She is probably the primary breadwinner in the family.

    1. Don’t make fun. I think it’s great that so many American journalists are employees of either the 9th richest person on the planet (Charles Koch) or the 1st or 2nd richest person on the planet (Jeff Bezos tends to alternate with Bill Gates for the top spot).

      #BillionairesKnowBest

      1. “”#BillionairesKnowBest””

        Careful OBL, Bloomberg will steal that.

        1. No, Mike gets it done 🙂

          1. I don’t want to interrupt, just wanted to say hi
            -Tom Steyer

            1. Can you imagine WTF was going through his mind as he was listening to them? Classic.

              1. “Wow! I can use this to get them really on board with Climate Change!”

              2. I think that was the least presidential thing I’ve ever seen.
                How the f did that dude make all his money???

                1. HE DIDN’T FAIL AT EVERY ACTUAL BUSINESS … SIX OF THEM BANKRUPTCIES, LIKE TRUMP DID.

                  WOULD STEYER BE THE SECOND PRESIDENT FORCED TO PAY A $25 MILLION SETTLEMENT, LIKE TRUMP DID, IN OFFICE. FOR FRAUD?

                  Would Steyer be corrupt enough to campaign on a 60% tax cut for himself … and a small percentage of the richest 1% … to be a billionaire paying a top income tax rate of 15% … LOWER THAN MANY OF THE SUCKERS WHO VOTED FOR HIM.

                  Has Steyer ever been one of the worst credit risks in the world … that NO US bank would lend him a dime … only to be bailed out by a convicted Russian money launderer, Deutsche Bank? Does Steyer owe his entire fortune to a Russian money launderer?

    2. She’s the brains too and I highly doubt Suderman rights all of his own stuff.

      1. She must be so embarrassed by him sometimes.

      2. I highly doubt Suderman rights all of his own stuff.

        It’s spelled “writes.” (snort)

  6. I didn’t think it was possible, but #TrumpUkraine surpassed #TrumpRussia as the biggest scandal in world history. Fortunately we have the brilliant strategist Nancy Pelosi to punish Orange Hitler for his despicable crimes.

    1. “the brilliant strategist Nancy Pelosi”

      OK. The parody has gone too far, pump the brakes

      1. OK. The parody has gone too far,…

        Okay, but AFTER I ridicule YOU.
        Rasmussen Polling .. a REPUBLICAN pollster reports Pelosi at a new high in popularity, ever.

        https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_faves_jan17
        “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains the best-known leader of Congress and is enjoying her greatest popularity ever.”

      1. “brilliant strategist Nancy Pelosi ”“Total nut job, Entropy Drehmaschine Void”

        Here’s your fucking headline
        “White House rips Pelosi over impeachment ‘souvenir pens”

        How, even in the craziest delusions, do you ass-ume Pelosi’s “strategy” is to … PLEASE DONALD TRUMP?

        Says a lot about YOUR tactical genius, General Custer’s Great Grandson

  7. Because the most compelling narrative to sell to the average American is that Trump needs to be impeached for violating a sub-clause in a regulation nobody ever heard of.

    I’m getting more and more on board with Ken’s theory that Trump is just a symptom of the complete disconnect between the ‘elites’ and everyone else.

    1. It is certainly not an unreasonable interpretation of the facts. I would really like to know if Sudderman just doesn’t understand how ridiculous he looks making these claims or does and for whatever reason doesn’t care.

      1. We must strike a blow against ‘privilege’ by fighting tooth and nail in defense of Hunter Biden making $50-$84/mo trading on his family name.

        1. It was actually a lot more than that, that was just part of his compensation package. As I understand it, he actually cleared about $3M a year, when you added everything up.

      2. I would really like to know if Sudderman just doesn’t understand how ridiculous he looks making these claims

        (snort) They are GAO claims … and you get more ridiculous by the minute.

    2. I like Ken but that’s hardly his making. You can see it in every comment section of every Reason article.

      People are sick of the elitist fucks who push pie in the sky bull shit about utopia and promote pedantic arguments about sub-clauses.

      Keep at it Suderman, free market, open borders Utopia is one “Orange Man Bad” article away.

      1. “Keep at it Suderman, free market, open borders Utopia is one “Orange Man Bad” article away.”

        From you finding something better to do with your time? Unlikely. You’ll be here day after day whining about the articles here…..like you always do.

        1. Stop stalking him, creeper.

        2. cut my comments down to once a week. Once you figure out that Reason is clickbait bullshit it’s hard to ignore the patterns. There’s zero risk involved with bashing the Orange Man. It’s why small men with large degrees jerk eachother’s egos off online.

          Occasionally there’s an original thought here but it will most likely come from the comments section.

          1. YES!

            I find any intelligent content here to generally be in the comments … well hidden!

    3. Suderman isn’t elite. But he so desperately wants to learn the secret handshake.

    4. a sub-clause in a regulation nobody ever heard of.

      Yes, you are a nobody. And, yes, self-confessed as both ignorant and retarded.

  8. He can’t even be criminally indicted(assuming he broke the law), all the GAO could do is sue the OBM for the release of the funds. Assuming the courts agree with the GAO’s argument, the funds have already be released. This is beyond hilarious! Anyone else wonder about the timing of this? Dems are really reaching

    1. Trump signed a trade deal with China yesterday. So the whole “TRADE WAR” narrative is up in smoke. At this point, it seems like they will say anything to create a distraction and try and win a newscycle.

      1. Lets not go overboard. The unconstitutional tariffs are still on the books. I am still paying them and until that gets rectified, fuck his trade policy.

        1. The tariffs are absolutely constitutional Tariffs are enshrined in the Constitution. You can say they are bad but you cannot say they are unconstitutional. They are not. Before the income tax, tariffs funded the entire government.

          1. Tariffs are enshrined in the Constitution.

            In which Article?

            Tariffs aren’t unconsitutional. Tariffs implemented unilaterally by the President in the name of #NationalSecurity, when the majority of them don’t even pass the laugh test as they relate to #NationalSecurity are absolutely not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

            For that matter, I’d argue that even if Congress wanted to cede it’s enumerated power to the executive it should require a 2/3 majority and 3/4 of the states… per the Constitution.

            1. the Tariffs were not unilaterally enacted by the President. Congress gave him the power to implement those tariffs. They were enacted by congress. Congress just let the President have some discretion on their implementation.

              You are argument is just wrong. Just because you don’t like a decision doesn’t mean its illegal. And your insisting that it is illegal just discredits whatever argument you have on the merits.

              1. Congress gave the President the authority to raise tariffs only related to national security. You might be able to make the argument that steel/aluminum fit this criteria. Maybe. But if you think the tariffs on consumer goods in the later rounds of tariffs are related to national security, then there really is no limit on the President’s tariff powers. That type of total cession of power requires a constitutional amendment.

                Just like when Obama raised tariffs on tires.

                1. Yes they did. And saying that relations with China are a national security issue is not unreasaonable. If you disagree with that fine. But your disagreeing with it doesn’t make it illegal.

                  1. The rule of law is a myth anyway. Things are only illegal if a court finds them to be. So, by that logic, I guess I would agree that it’s not illegal. Just like all the other things government does that they don’t have the enumerated power to do.

                    1. Poor Leo. He loses the constitutionality of tariff argument so Then rule of law is a myth.

                      Congress gave the executive the power under their constitutional authority so rule of law is present. Lefties are trying to destroy rule of law and make it rule of man but there are still examples of rule of law.

                    2. LC1789 is ignorant of what restrictions the law include.

                2. And one other thing. At what point does the economy continuing to grow, wages continuing to rise become enough data for you to reconsider your view of the economics of trade? Is there any amount of data counter to the predictions you and others have made regarding the implementation of tariffs that would cause you to reconsider your model? If so, what would that be. And if not, how is what you believe not just a religion?

                  1. We have high, progressive income taxes, yet the economy continues to grow.

                    We have government regulation of the means of production, yet the economy continues to grow.

                    Those aren’t compelling arguments for socialism, though. They aren’t even compelling arguments for high taxes or excessive regulations.

            2. There is a fine argument to be made that Congress should not have given the executive this kind of discretionary authority, but if it is unconstitutional, it is because the Congress was wrong to grant such authority to the executive.

              1. They weren’t just wrong. They don’t have the power to do that without amending the constitution. And if they don’t have the power to do that, any action that relies on that unconstitutional action (ie raising tariffs without congressional approval) should be unconstitutional.

                There’s no chance a court would ever find this way, because the whole house of cards would come crumbling down. But it’s the way it should be under a strict reading of the Constitution.

                1. The delegation doctrine is accepted as official at this point, although there is a delegation question at the USSC this term. So maybe it gets pulled back.

                  1. It’s doubtful, but in my opinion should be. Can you imagine how much of the current government and regulatory schemes in place today would come crumbling down with a broad decision in that case? No chance Roberts would allow that.

              2. Both would be breaking their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. One doing it does not absolve the other. Thats a child’s argument; “Jimmy did it first”. Oath breaking is wrong, period.

            3. In which Article?
              Article I Section 8
              The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

              1. Correct. Article 1 not Article 2.

        2. What unconstitutional tariffs? I’d love to see what in the Constitution bans tariffs. Up until the Income Tax was enacted, tariffs and duties were the primary ways that the Federal Government was funded. If you want unconstitutional, look at the income tax.

          1. No, no, no – the income tax is totally cool with libertarians.
            Only things that inhibit the desires of foreigners and transnational corporations are anti liberty!

            1. Strawman.

              1. Sorry, just summarizing 2 years worth of articles and comments I’ve seen yall make

                  1. Fuck off, Hihn. You ban evading piece of shit.

                    1. Fucking psycho.
                      There is no ban, asshole.
                      There were 13 bans, but all lifted, under threat of a lawsuit.

                      Dealing with psycho thugs is what we libertarians have been doing for over 50 years, You are NOT the wackiest, just the sissiest.

                      NARDZ IS A TOTAL FUCKING PSYCHO ON REASON AND THE INCOME TAX … NARDZ IS ALSO A FUCKING FASCIST ON TAXES … TOO CRAZY FOR EVEN AYN RAND. ARE YOU AN AUTHORITARIAN — LIKE HIM — REJECTING “CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED?”
                      (For any other retards, the only alternative is a monarchy or dictatorship)

                      Or … WHY DO YOU SAY OUR CONSTITUION IS ILLEGITIMATE?

                    2. And with that, Hihn outs his own sock.

                      And “threat of a lawsuit”? I’m sure that paperwork is lining some Reason staffer’s birdcage.

                    3. And “threat of a lawsuit”? I’m sure that paperwork is lining some Reason staffer’s birdcage.

                      Because you’re too fucking stupid to notice the bans were lifted,

                      I AM HERE. (SNEER)

                    4. And “threat of a lawsuit”? I’m sure that paperwork is lining some Reason staffer’s birdcage.

                      Because you’re too fucking stupid to notice the bans were lifted,

                      I AM HERE. (SNEER)

                    5. And “threat of a lawsuit”? I’m sure that paperwork is lining some Reason staffer’s birdcage.

                      Because you’re too fucking stupid to notice the bans were lifted,

                      I AM HERE, DUMBASS. (SNEER)

                    6. And “threat of a lawsuit”? I’m sure that paperwork is lining some Reason staffer’s birdcage.

                      Because you’re too fucking stupid to notice the bans were lifted,

                      I AM HERE, DUMBASS. (SNEER)

                      PROVED YOU A FOOL … FOUR TIMES!!!
                      Mouthy punk.,

                    7. And with that, Hihn outs his own sock.

                      BRAGGED about it, Gomer … before humiliating your pathetic ass.

            2. No, no, no – the income tax is totally cool with libertarians.

              Except the dumbfuck ones, who reject “consent of the governed” — which makes them:
              a) Authoritarian
              b) More extreme than even Ayn Rand!!!!

              1. So…
                Am I a liar, or do only “the dumbfuck” libertarians object to income taxes?
                They’re mutually exclusive statements in this case

                1. Since you ask, you are definitely a dumbfuck, since “liar” appears nowhere in the discussion..

                  ONE MORE TIME.
                  except the dumbfuck ones, who reject “consent of the governed” — which makes them:
                  a) Authoritarian
                  b) More extreme than even Ayn Rand!!!!Authoritarian, by sneering at “consent of the governed” — which leaves only a monarchy or a dictatorship.

                  Too crazy for Ayn Rand, who explicitly defended “consent of the governed.” …. And ALSO stated that “voluntary taxation” would be the last step, not the first, toward a free society. The last reform, not the first, and only AFTER government was reduced to it’s bare minimum.”

                  As we see under Trump, only TOTAL dumbfucks can’t handle the elementary math that … FIRST you reduce spending. FUCKING-DUH. (Fuck you, Rand Paul)

                  Your own hideous contempt for individual liberty (consent of the governed) is both obvious and disgusting on a libertarian web site.

                  Taxes are no different that dues to Kiwanis or a local garden club, but your mind has become too polluted to grasp that simple fact.

                  1. Your statements at 11:25 and 11:24 directly contradict one another.
                    Then you compounded your error by denying that what was clearly written was clearly written. We can all see it.
                    You fucked up, psycho bully

                    1. Your statements at 11:25 and 11:24 directly contradict one another.

                      I he full of shit … or stupid, AND WHY DID THE COWARD CHANGE THE SUBJECT (when he LOST)

                      1) I called you a LIAR at 11:25, on your statement “No, no, no – the income tax is totally cool with libertarians. Only things that inhibit the desires of foreigners and transnational corporations are anti liberty!”

                      2) And PROVED it at 11:24. “Except the dumbfuck ones ((libertarians), who reject ‘consent of the governed’ — which makes them:
                      a) Authoritarian
                      b) More extreme than even Ayn Rand!!!!

                      And you just PROVED me correct! (second repeat)

                      Then you compounded your error by denying that

                      BE SPECIFC, LIKE I AM. COWARDLY PUNK. (you’re AGAIN full of shit)

                      So…
                      Am I a liar, or do only “the dumbfuck” libertarians object to income taxes?
                      They’re mutually exclusive statements in this caseWRONG AGAIN.
                      YOU’RE A LIAR
                      AND — THIRD REPEAT — ONLY “DUMBFUCK” LIBERTARIANS OBJECT TO INCOME TAXES (the concept, not the level or how it’s structured

                      YOU SEEM TO HAVE FUCKED UP YOUT OWN GRAMMAR. LEMME ‘SPPL

                    2. ….YOU SEEM TO HAVE FUCKED UP YOUT OWN GRAMMAR. LEMME ‘SPLAIN IT TO YOU, LUCY

                      YOU
                      No, no, no – the income tax is totally cool with libertarians.

                      ME
                      Except the dumbfuck ones, who reject “consent of the governed” — which makes them:
                      a) Authoritarian
                      b) More extreme than even Ayn Rand!!!!Pay attention this time.
                      YES. THE INCOME TAX IS COOL WITH LIBERTARIANS … AND I TOLD YOU WHY. … EXCEPT THE “DUMBFUCK” ONES, WHO THINK AS i SAID .. THE SAME DUMMIES WHO SAY ALL TAXATION IS THEFT, ALSO IN CONTEMPT OF INDIVISUAL LIBERTY AND SELF-DETERMINATION (consent of the governed).

                      Since you ADMIT being a libertarian (haha), you are BOTH a liar AND a “dumbfuck” libertarian..
                      1) An authoritarian
                      2) And too extreme for even Ayn Rand.

                      NOW THREE EXPLANATIONS. If still confused, like your MASSIVE “contradict each other” fuckup … find a high school sophomore to explain it … slowly enough for you.

          2. Tell me where the executive has that power written into the Constitution or an amendment?

            1. What power?

              Your comment was placed as a response to this, by jimc5499

              <blockquote<What unconstitutional tariffs? I’d love to see what in the Constitution bans tariffs. Up until the Income Tax was enacted, tariffs and duties were the primary ways that the Federal Government was funded. If you want unconstitutional, look at the income tax.He obviously fucked up on the income tax, but YOU fucked up on tariffs being unconstitutional.

              Since you now SWITCH to the executive, presumably the executive levying tariffs, a power granted by Congress in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

              We could perhaps nit-pick the details of that law. But it seems more appropriate to note that Trump has LOST TO ANOTHER dictator … extending his unbroken losing streak … by NOW caving on EVERY goal he stated. for launching his destructive trade war with China … yet another loss for ALL Americans, to North Korea, Iran, Russia and now China,

      2. So you think GAO is coordinating with democratic presidential nominees?

        1. 90% of D.C. workers in government are Democrats. it doesn’t take explicit coordination.

          1. Liar. It never stops with you.

        2. No not necessarily. The reason I wonder about the timing is because, as I stated earlier, if the courts agree with their findings, all that can be done is to force the president to release funds he already released. It’s a mute point now. Given what we have seen with RussiaGate, the Mueller probe, “missteps” by the FBI, the FISA courts/warrants, its not out of the realm of possibilities that the GOA has some partisan actors who pushed this “decision” out at a time when the Dems impeachment case is falling apart.

          1. I stated earlier,

            That is NOT a source.
            Plus, a wrong conclusion,

            if the courts agree with their findings, all that can be done is to force the president to release funds he already released

            It would then become a blatantly impeachable offense … which is why both Trump and his party are going psycho over it,

            Recall, he did it as a blatant abuse of power, using taxpayer dollars to bully a foreign government into helping his re-election .. even more blatant than his invitation to Russia, to interfere in the last Presidential election.

            (If not abuse of power, why did he lie about it, blatantly and repeatedly.)

            1. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

              Trump didn’t draw any money. Unless Trump drew money not appropriated, he did nothing wrong. It doesn’t say he can’t refuse to draw it from the Treasury if appropriated, just can’t withdraw it unless appropriated.

              1. How many times will crazed Trumptard, Bruce D, repeat the SAME FUCKUP … as he stalks me down the page, making a total fool of himself … again .,.. and again … and again … and again …

                1) Cites Article One of the Constitution … LEGISLATIVE branch … says it applies to the EXECUTIVE branch! OMG.

                2) Confuses the CONSTITUTION with LAWS

                3) DENIES THE APPLICABLE LAW … the Impound Control Act — which means (a) he NEVER read the article, and (B) is TOTALLY IGNORANT of the core, relevant issue here,

                It doesn’t say he can’t refuse to draw it from the Treasury if appropriated, just can’t withdraw it unless appropriated.

                Yes, dumbfuck, Article 1 (Legislative branch) does not say that
                BUT THE IMPOUND CONTROL ACT SAYS IT … SINCE 1974, CHUMP …. WHICH MAKES YOU BREATHTAKINGLY STUPID ON WHAT THE ISSUE EVEN IS!

                Typical Trumptard.

                Thank you for playing. Please select a lovely PARTING gift,

    2. > Anyone else wonder about the timing of this?

      The Impeachment is moving forward. Meaning this is the appropriate time.

      1. I would say the appropriate time was during the House impeachment trial. That way this information would be included in the articles moving to the Senate. Now we are supposed to have the Senate hear “evidence” that was not included in the impeachment articles. The GAO’s decision is at least 4 months too late to have any impact whatsoever.

        1. I would say the appropriate time was during the House impeachment trial.

          That was not a trial.
          The trial is in the Senate,

    3. Correct. Suderman doesn’t even point out that the GAO works for Congress (and is staffed by a bunch of big government mostly Democrats that don’t like Trump), so you’re right they’d have to sue in the courts because of the balance of powers to get enforcement which is moot anyway. Alan Dershowitz made this point earlier, and Suderman didn’t do his research or is ignoring it.

      I also see nothing wrong with Guiliani dealing with Trump’s personal interests to find out what happened in Ukraine. Trump’s not getting much support from the State Dept. that’s working against him probably because there’s a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats in it.

      1. GAO works for Congress (and is staffed by a bunch of big government mostly Democrats that don’t like Trump

        ANOTHER crazy conspiracy!!! (gasp)

  9. We all know what happened and we know it’s 100% true. Trump withheld military aid from an ally in exchange for an announcement that his likely Democratic opponent in the 2020 election was under investigation. The facts can’t be in dispute to anyone who’s not a partisan idiot.

    As it has been for months, the only question is, do you care? If you don’t, make that case. Make the case that it’s perfectly okay for a president to do this. But knock it off with pretending Trump is innocent.

    1. You’re right, the transcript speaks for itself. Can you tell us how it is illegal to ask a foreign government to investigate corruption in their own country? That is what POTUS Trump did.

      Listen, the Senate will very shortly answer your question. 🙂

      1. Parnas and Sondland have both now said the pressue campaign had nothing to do with corruption. Giuliani said he was representing Trump in his personal capacity which means everything he was doing in Ukraine was for Trump’s personal enrichment and they were using tax money and the office of the presidency to bribe the Ukrainians into helping out Trump personally. They need to indict Trump and the rest of these scumbags as soon as possible.

        1. Parnas.. the guy under indictment for false testimony and fabrication of evidence?

          Sondland, who changed his testimony from his opening statement to his spoken testimony where he testified under questioning that nobody told him to hold aid for an announcement?

          You seem quite ignorant.

          1. Yeah that Parnas. He was indicted for funneling money to Republicans. He was working directly for Trump. That guy.

            1. You seem to not know what the word directly means. And you missed the other indictments in your rush to outrage.

          2. Crazy how so many people Trump and his cronies hire turn out to be liars! Even crazier how they are trusted by Trumpers until the exact moment they turn on Trump.

          3. Yeah, Parmas, the guy who PROVED it all, with actual documents, whiners.
            (hahaha)

          4. Parnas.. the guy under indictment for false testimony and fabrication of evidence?

            He has provided HARD EVIDENCE ….,emails, texts and letters,

            And Trump’s fucking lie that he never knew Parnas is now refuted by several photographs.

            You lose AGAIN, Jesse!

        2. I’m sorry, but there’s an important point. WHO GIVES A CARE WHY TRUMP WAS DECIDING TO INVESTIGATE CERTAIN CRIMES?Trump’s personal motivations are irrelevant to this discussion.

          Did Trump have reasonable suspicion to ask for Biden’s investigation. Obviously Yes.
          Did he ask for an investigation. Obviously Yes
          Did Trump withhold aid past any deadline set by Congress. No.

          Where’s the beef? What’s the problem? Trump broke no law

          1. “I’m sorry, but there’s an important point. WHO GIVES A CARE WHY TRUMP WAS DECIDING TO INVESTIGATE CERTAIN CRIMES?”

            Trump didn’t decide to investigate crimes. If he did, he would have gone through the DOJ. Instead, he pressured a foreign government, illegally withheld funds as part of that pressure, and sent his personal lawyer to do yet more pressuring.

            All of this points to corrupt motive.

            “Trump’s personal motivations are irrelevant to this discussion.”

            They are relevant to determining whether he was acting in the national interest or his own personal interests when he made an end-run around foreign policy. The GAO is literally taking the most charitable approach–assuming this was a policy rather than a personal matter. Even then, they concluded that his actions were illegal.

            “Did Trump have reasonable suspicion to ask for Biden’s investigation. Obviously Yes.”

            No. Joe Biden was acting on behalf of the Obama administration, backed by all of our allies, when he pressed for Shokin’s firing. The theory that he was acting out of personal interest in that matter is thus ludicrous.

            Did Trump withhold aid past any deadline set by Congress. No.

            He withheld the aid for 55 days, illegally, and for personal gain.

            1. Are you Suderman’s sock?

              1. Why are you too CHICKEN-SHIT to ever deal with an actual issue??

                EVERY word he wrote is PROVEN somewhere on this page, you whiny pussy.

              2. You’re going to choose to believe that regardless of what I say because it helps you disengage and refuse to argue the points I raised demolishing your argument, so why exactly should I answer?

        3. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

          Trump didn’t draw any money. Unless Trump drew money not appropriated, he did nothing wrong. It doesn’t say he can’t refuse to draw it from the Treasury if appropriated, just can’t withdraw it unless appropriated.

          1. Bruce D has now repeated this MASSIVE FUCKUP … SIX TIMES.

            1) Dumbass confuses the Constitution with the applicable LAW

            2) Cites from Article 1 (legislative Branch) … but applies it to the EXECUTIVE branch!!!! (Does he even know we have THREE separate branches???)

            3) TOTALLY IGNORANT of THE applicable law … the Impoundment Control Act ,,, which means (a) He never read the article, and … (b) is TOTALLY IGNORANT OF THE ENTIRE ISSUE!

            Typical Trumptard. So,.,, what crazy web site SUCKERED him into such TOTAL self-humiliation — Breitbart? Fox? Daily Caller? WND? Storm Front? SATAN? THE ANTI-CHRIST?

      2. “Can you tell us how it is illegal to ask a foreign government to investigate corruption in their own country?”

        When the ask is tied to committing a crime–i.e., if you don’t do this, I will illegally withhold congressionally approved aid without notifying Congress–then that is illegal.

          1. Bruce D, you may be the ONLY person on earth to be TOTALLY IGNORANT of the applicable law …. while also confusing the Constitution with Laws ,,, and fucking up the difference between the Executive and Legislative Branches!!

            https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8092403

            How can Bruce say “no crime” … about a law he denies even exists? IF YOU DON’T KNOW THE LAW EXISTS, HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY WHETHER IT HAS BEEN BROKEN????

            Obviously also a Birther!

    2. Trump withheld military aid from an ally in exchange for an announcement that his likely Democratic opponent in the 2020 election was under investigation. The facts can’t be in dispute to anyone who’s not a partisan idiot.

      I’ll plead ignorance of the facts here: When was the announcement made, by whom, and when were the funds released? I care if Trump is guilty. He shouldn’t and can’t be guilty of acts that violate causality. No matter how guilty I think he may be, causality comes first.

      1. Attempted murder isn’t a crime!

        1. Attempted murder is a legally passed law. Link me to attempted pid pro quo.

          1. Attempted murder is a legally passed law. Link me to attempted pid pro quo.

            TRY AND KEEP UP. DOES NOT NEED ONE — HE BROKE THE LAW BY WITHHOLDING THE FUNDS.

          2. It’s called QUID pro quo … and no longer relevant here.

        2. Attempted murder isn’t a crime!

          Still need the facts on the timeline/causality. Again, attempted murder is a crime, but causality comes first. “Stabbing” someone with an empty hand because you haven’t gone out to buy the knife yet doesn’t even rise to the level of attempted murder.

        3. Attempted murder isn’t a crime!

          A cowardly diversion … and wrong.

          The crime of attempted murder can be charged when a person intends to commit murder and tries to carry out the killing but, for whatever reason, is unable to accomplish it. Like murder itself, attempted murder is a serious crime and one that comes with some of the most severe penalties in the criminal justice system.

          Plus this one (more detail)

          https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/attempted-murder/

          Anything else?

    3. This is where I am on the issue, pretty much. I would probably argue that it’s not 100% true, though, but that’s a ridiculous threshold to prove.

      Given that, it seems like the proper action is probably censure from Congress. Impeachment for this isn’t warranted in my opinion… and I’m a pretty harsh critic of the President.

      1. “it seems like the proper action is probably censure”

        Lol

      2. For the Dems, impeachment is not about whether or not Trump did something wrong. They have been calling for impeachment since 2016. Look to the 4 investigations into Trump-Russian collusion for previous examples. Censure would have been a better option and more than likely wouldn’t have blown back the dems face, the problem is they have been promising impeachment for too long, it had to be done.

        1. Yeah, those are the politics here. I predict we’ll see far more impeachments going forward. Basically any time a Speak of the House and a President have a different letter following their names.

          1. Are you saying the House democrats are abusing their power?

            1. Yes. The majority of them are doing this for political reasons. That’s as much an abuse of power as withholding funds from a foreign government for political reasons.

              1. “Yes. The majority of them are doing this for political reasons. That’s as much an abuse of power as withholding funds from a foreign government for political reasons.”

                NARRATOR: It isn’t, because impeachment is a political process and withholding funds from a foreign government has legal implications.

          2. I predict we’ll see far more impeachments going forward.

            I predict we won’t.

            Historically, the political fallout for the party bringing impeachment has been ghastly. It was in 1868; it was in 1998. It will be this time, too.

            When it’s over, neither party will have an appetite for trying it again for decades.

    4. I don’t care about it because it doesn’t rise to anything and I wouldn’t state his motive was spying on an opponent anymore then I would state it was simply to root out corruption.

      Obama, spying on the American people, invading Libya – I support impeachment on those charges.

      Bush, torture program, lying about Iraq invasion – I support impeachment on those charges.

      Trump – tariff by executive order – I support impeachment of that (although he does get cover for some law being passed; but he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and others violating their oaths doesn’t absolve him of his oath).

      But all those are moot because Washington loves those things.

      1. Obama, spying on the American people, spying on Congress, spying on the Media, invading Libya – I support impeachment on those charges.

        Fixed that.

        1. Obama, spying on the American people, spying on Congress, spying on the Media, spying on presidential candidates, invading Libya, knowingly and intentionally lying about the ACA, dronessassinating American citizens on foreign soil, ‘phone and pen’, any one of 44+ unanimous SCOTUS overturns – I support impeachment on those charges.

          I’m sure there’s plenty more fixing to be done.

          1. “I’m sure there’s plenty more fixing to be done.”

            Every time you see the Imperator’s Magick Phone and Pen.

        2. Sure no problem, was just limiting my response. Obama more then any president deserves impeachment. And sadly I voted for asshole. But in my defense, McCain.

          1. Oh for the record, 2 of the 3 are far worse examples for impeachment. I’ll let you guess who I think is the least impeachable, granted that person hasn’t served 1 full term.

            Added charges Obama and Bush selling guns to the cartels. Yeah I could keep going.

      2. “I wouldn’t state his motive was spying on an opponent anymore then I would state it was simply to root out corruption.”

        Impossibly naive, as the following three questions will illuminate:

        –If Trump was concerned with rooting out corruption, why did he not ask for anything besides investigations of Biden and Crowdstrike–two things that would benefit himself politically?

        –If Trump was concerned with rooting out corruption, why did he pressure a foreign government that he himself has argued is corrupt, rather than asking the DOJ to investigate?

        –If Trump was concerned with rooting out corruption, why did he send his personal lawyer to engage in a pressure campaign in Ukraine?

        1. – Biden and Crowdstrike were high profile culprits with deep, dark connections in Ukraine.
          – A new government was elected, with Zelensky winning on an anti-corruption platform to replace the wildly corrupt Poroshenko, and that new government’s tendency toward corruption was the question. Meanwhile, the DOJ/FBI, with the exception of possibly no one besides Barr, is known to be wildly corrupt and has spent the last several years fabricating ridiculous stories in an attempt to take down Trump himself. It is entirely possible that Ukraine’s new government is indeed less corrupt than career bureaucrats in the DOJ.
          – “Pressure” is certainly what Biden applied, but the current Ukrainian government has denied feeling any pressure from Trump or Giuliani. Giuliani was sent because Trump feels he can be trusted, and because Giuliani has a history of success taking down organized crime (see his work against the mafia in NYC).

          1. – Biden and Crowdstrike were high profile culprits with deep, dark connections in Ukraine.

            Bat-shit crazy .;.. AGAIN .,.. by Trump’s psycho lies.

            No .., Crowdstrike is NOT owned by a wealthy Ukrainian. They are a publicly traded corporation, HQ in California ,… NO connection to Ukraine,

            Trump, vengeful prick that he is, pulled that attack out of his ass. Why? It was Crowdstrike who proved that it was RUSSIA who hacked the DNC servers — as part of the larger scheme to elect Trump.

            Are you done peppering the page with Trumptard bullshit?

            1. Crowdstrike proved no such thing, they alleged.
              CrowdStrike was founded by Atlantic Council member (and GA Tech alum) Dmitry Alperovitch

              1. Crowdstrike proved no such thing, they alleged.BULLSHIT. AND SHAME ON YOU.
                The FBI confirmed the proof that Russia was the hacker,

                CrowdStrike was founded by Atlantic Council member (and GA Tech alum) Dmitry Alperovitch

                BULLSHIT AGAIN!
                There are two founders, The other is George Kurtz.
                You’ve just admitted that Trump is FULL OF SHIT that Crowdstrike is owned by a rich Ukrainian, and has Hillary’s server hidden in Ukraine.

                Atlantic Council is NOT in Ukraine!
                And he is RUSSIAN, not Ukrainian.

                Anything else.

    5. “Trump withheld military aid”

      You mean the aid that they received before the deadline?
      Fuck off.

      “The facts can’t be in dispute to anyone who’s not a partisan idiot”
      So you’re a partisan idiot then?

      1. You mean the aid that they received before the deadline?

        Yes. In violation of the Impound Control Act.
        The evidence is overwhelming. But how would you know?

    6. “…The facts can’t be in dispute to anyone who’s not a partisan idiot.”

      You’re right, the facts cannot be disputed. You should learn some:
      “…his likely Democratic opponent in the 2020 election…”

      You.
      Are.
      Full.
      Of.
      Shit.

      1. Is it your argument that Biden is not the likely Democratic opponent in the 2020 election?

        Are you seeing different polls than the rest of us?

    7. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

      Trump didn’t draw any money. Unless Trump drew money not appropriated, he did nothing wrong. It doesn’t say he can’t refuse to draw it from the Treasury if appropriated, just can’t withdraw it unless appropriated.

      1. How many times can crazy Trunmptard, Bruce D repeat the same fuckup … eight times. so far.

        1) Dumbass confuses the Constitution, with the applicable LAW

        2) Dumbass cites Article 1 (legislative branch) ,,, but applies it ton the EXECUTIVE branch.

        3) TOTALLY IGNORANT of the applicable LAW — The Impound Control, Act. … So NEVER READ THIS ARTICLE .. AND TOTALLY IGNORANT OF THE ENTIRE ISSUE!

        4) Seems compelled to self-humiliation. EIGHT TIMES ON THIS PAGE (so far)

  10. So illegal that the Dem Congress chose not to include this in the articles of impeachment. Sure.

    1. Trump withholding aid for personal gain is literally the basis for the articles of impeachment.

      1. Trump winning was the frivolous basis for impeachment.

        Made Trump the best President in US History.

          1. Yeah, you are a pig, Hihnsano. That’s why your kids hate your guts.

            1. I don’t have kids, sick fuck.

        1. Ah yes, that’s why they impeached the moment he won, and not three years later.

  11. Is this the same GAO that we’re always being told is non-partisan?

    I didn’t realize they were a criminal/judicial body.

    I’m with BearO. Let’s go, full circus. If you’re worried about burning the Republic down, you might want to have a look around, there’s not a lot of Republic left standing.

    1. I’ll answer that one. With respect, you are completely wrong = BearO and the Circus Maximus.

      We live in the greatest country on the face of the earth. I am not being jingoistic. Our Republic is almost magical. Where else can you arrive with nothing, and become a billionaire? And this happens over and over here. We are truly blessed to be Americans. Our economy is the best. Our educational institutions are the envy of the world. Our industries are world leaders. Our military might is unmatched.

      And by and large, we are a good and decent people. No other country does as much, gives as much, sacrifices as much for the betterment of humanity than we do. It is not wrong to call ourselves exceptional – because we are.

      And you want to destroy this? For this partisan impeachment charade? Are you out of your mind? THINK for God’s sake. We have so much to lose with a Circus Maximus. And make no mistake – a circus will destroy us. It might take some time, but it will.

      No mad.casual, the way to address this is through the ballot box. Team D needs to have a crushing and decisive electoral defeat, and then the argument will be ended. Have the trail, and get it over with as quickly as possible. Then win this the old-fashioned way: At the ballot box.

      1. This is like arguing that shooting back is the cause of escalation.
        The republic is already destroyed.
        The question now is: who/what gets destroyed next?
        If it’s the Ds/DC/progressivism, there’s the slight chance we can rebuild a republic.
        If it’s Trump/us, all is lost and there’s nothing left but blood

      2. And you want to destroy this? For this partisan impeachment charade? Are you out of your mind? THINK for God’s sake. We have so much to lose with a Circus Maximus. And make no mistake – a circus will destroy us. It might take some time, but it will.

        You seem to think *I* started this circus. I did not. The *only* place to lay absolute and unequivocal blame for any circus that is to take place is at the feet of the Republic you hold so dear. Both sides are exceedingly certain the Republic has been and will be irrevocably damaged. I don’t disagree. And, inasmuch as I know the house always wins, I should at least get some entertainment out of my impending and involuntary loss.

        I don’t want to destroy it. I don’t see that avoiding a Circus is going to save it. And considering that “a circus will destroy us. It might take some time, but it will.” it sounds like you don’t necessarily disagree.

        1. No, I don’t blame you personally, mad.casual, of course not. But I don’t think people in general understand how dangerous something like this can be. Johnson’s impeachment had profound effects for decades afterward, and probably altered the course of reconstruction. We should not cheer for a nasty, brutal fight.

          1. No, but we should cheer for one side when they start fighting back.
            Progressivism has gone too far.
            There will be blood.
            Ours?
            Or theirs?

            1. Both but more of theirs.

              The Tree of Liberty only survives if the Patriots have less of their blood spilt.

      3. “…the way to address this is through the ballot box. Team D needs to have a crushing and decisive electoral defeat, and then the argument will be ended.”

        OK, let’s assume that’s true. Don’t you want the voters to be informed? A trial where the past three years’ malfeasance isn’t going to rip the country apart. But it might tell people just what their government and their representatives have been doing all of this time.

        As for the GAO being partisan, after Obama spend the eight years of his administration politicizing formerly non-partisan institutions such as the Census Bureau, the IRS, and, frankly, the military, nothing would surprise me anymore about the bias of a given federal government body.

        Plus, as Jesse noted upthread, what percentage of government workers are Democrats? Is it the 90 percent he claimed? I’d buy at least over 3/4. No coordination or overarching conspiracy is needed, if all of your coworkers are on the same political page.

        1. Gray, yes I do want voters informed. Where we part ways is using such a powerful and dangerous constitutional tool – impeachment – to further their education. I have to draw the line there. I would have preferred this never happened, but Team D went ahead and did it anyway, and it was wrong. Let’s not compound that error.

          Listen, do you think I would it personally satisfying to haul a bunch of people in there and let the Chief Justice ask them questions for days and days. And see them squirm. Sure, that would make me smile. But at what cost?

          Have the trial, get it over with quickly. And then focus on winning this the proper way: At the ballot box.

          1. “…but Team D went ahead and did it anyway, and it was wrong.”

            A bell that can’t be unrung. A bell that wasn’t rung by Trump.

            Look, fighting is a big reason why Trump is as popular as he is. The guy doesn’t turn the other cheek, unlike most every other Republican. He usually don’t attack, until he gets attacked, and then it’s game on. It is not compounding the error to point out why the Democrats and much of the rest of Washington went balls deep into this impeachment craze, only to try and back out when it became clear that the public might find out just how many of their relatives were getting filthy rich off the same corruption they thought they were going to use to smear Trump.

            Informing the American public exactly and specifically what kinds of shitbags represent them is not a cost. It is a revelation. A ‘cost’ would be Trump demanding special counsels be appointed to investigate Congress, and sending US marshals to lock people up for all of the things they did in the last three years of his administration, and then the eight of Obama’s. This? This is finishing what these clowns started.

            The public needs to know. We don’t have a press that’s worth a shit, or will do any digging, so I guess the public is going to have to learn through testimony in open court.

            1. The path you advocate is potentially very, very dangerous. I am not at all convinced that a mass airing of dirty laundry will make things any better. In fact, the opposite. We will see large scale disengagement between people of differing beliefs and that is the first real danger sign for our country. Civil decay begins with disengagement, and things go downhill from there. That is a lesson of history.

              Winning at the ballot box is a safer, and more certain strategy.

              1. Trump was partly elected to expose and lock up the corrupt individuals, like Hillary.

                All the corrupt politicians know who they are and what evidence of their crimes they left on the table. They counted on corrupt bureaucrats to get their back. The corruption is so bad that Trump needed at least 4 years to get new Blood onto the district and appellate benches. Then he got just enough DOJ and FBI officials to the top positions that are clean to investigate the corrupt politicians and bureacrats.

                Once Trump gets reelected, watch the hammer fall. He survived a coup and frivolous impeachment. Trump is going to force the Lefties to play their shitty hand and almost single handedly neuter the Democrat Party.

                1. You keep blowing smoke out your ass. while French-kissing Trump’s ass.

                  Rasmussen polling … a REPUBLICAN pollster .. just reported only 44% of voters are now likely to vote for Trump this November … vs 51% now likely to vote for ANYONE ELSE!

                  Educate yourself here: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/51_still_likely_to_vote_against_trump_in_november

                  Other polls show a near majority who now say they will “certainly” vote against Trump. But, since you folks swallowed the Birther bullshit, you’ll probably swallow anything.

    2. Is this the same GAO that we’re always being told is non-partisan?

      They are, despite your next bullshit.

      I didn’t realize they were a criminal/judicial body.

      Who said otherwise. They are the Government Accountability Office. Their JOB is to do what they did,

      So, stop whining like a pussy, BECAUSE they did their job … with LOTS of supporting evidence.

      Umm, when SCOTUS makes a ruling that you don’t like — do you challenge what their JOB is — usually expressed by mindless babbling about “unelected judges inventing rights,” and the like. Only authoritarians do that,

  12. Regardless of the credibility of the information that miraculously becomes available just as the impeachment moves to the Senate, . . .

    Every Senator who wishes to place their seat in jeopardy by voting to overturn the votes of their own constituents is and should be free to do so. Regardless of whether what Trump did was illegal, removing him from office over this doesn’t pass the average voter’s stink test.

    Anyone who thinks overturning the 2016 election and trying to prevent President Trump from being reelected this November with a vote in the Senate would be the end of populism in this country, they’re absolutely wrong. If and when populists become convinced that they can’t have an influence on policy or even have their votes respected within the context of liberal institutions, they won’t give up on influence or their leadership. They’ll give up on liberal institutions.

    1. Anyone who thinks overturning the 2016 election and trying to prevent President Trump from being reelected this November with a vote in the Senate would be the end of populism in this country, they’re absolutely wrong.

      Yes they are. But understand our political and media class are nearly universally morons. If they were not morons and had any idea what they were doing, there wouldn’t be a populist movement.

      That being said, the Senate voting to remove Trump would not just end the careers of a lot of Senators, it would be the end of the Republican Party.

      1. it would be the end of the Republican Party.

        Your going to make me switch my mind on this whole thing if your not careful (not that my thoughts on anything amount to a hill of beans).

        1. The problem is that what came after the Republican party would be a lot worse. Whatever its faults, it is the devil you know.

          1. Doctrinaire libertarians are fundamentally incapable of seeing the forest for the trees, because each tree is special and superior to the universe.
            In a similar vein, anarchists always end up procuring power for communists

            1. Totally wrong, I’m not an anarchist or an indoctrinated libertarian. I am just sarcastic and cynical.

          2. Maybe, probably but a man can still dream in this country; I don’t think that has been made illegal yet.

          3. If the Republican party were to cave, it would also have a huge impact on the Democratic party. The two seem diametrically opposed, but really they are co-dependent. If one shifts a little, the other does too. If one disappears, the other will too. If the GOP splintered and lost all political cohesiveness, the D party would do the same as different factions vied for influence. The woke scolds would be at the throats of the moderates instantly. Or perhaps the big tent would break along some other line. But certainly it would be the end of politics as we know it.

            Frankly, I think it would be a good thing. I think our society is strong enough to maintain an effective democracy through such upheaval. It might also force us to address some looming fiscal issues that keep getting kicked down the road and it would certainly reduce the influence of Washington over the rest of the nation.

            1. The Democrat is falling apart while the GOP is getting stronger.

              1. *Democrat party

              2. The Democrat Party is really behaving bizarrely for a U.S. political party, though. They moved left during Vietnam but moved back to the center when McGovern got his clock cleaned in 1972. But right now, after suffering a humiliating loss in 2016, there’s no sign of central movement nationally. They took the House by running a bunch of Dems as moderates (and used some election fraud in California), but they immediately went even further to the left than they were before. It’s causing their moderates and even liberals to flee in droves.

                Not to mention that Trump exacerbates that by not falling neatly within any ideological box. He has a platform with pieces that appeal all over the spectrum, and the Democrats are doing nothing to pull those votes back. It’s like the Democrats have run up to the edge of the abyss and then decided the abyss doesn’t matter so they didn’t stop at the edge.

      2. >>voting to remove Trump would not just end the careers of a lot of Senators, it would be the end of the Republican Party.

        suicide by draining the swamp.

    2. “Regardless of the credibility of the information that miraculously becomes available just as the impeachment moves to the Senate, . . .

      Riffing on this topic, the timing of this revelation means it was orchestrated, right?

      And once it becomes clear that something was orchestrated, it’s credibility suffers.

      Imagine Mark Fuhrman bursting into the O.J. trial just before the Judge Ito was about to send it to the jury. Fuhrman yells, “I found the glove. I found the glove. That was the wrong glove he tried on. This is the right glove, and it fits! The glove fits!”

      That’s what the GAO is doing here.

      I’m not sure how much credibility there is associated with that, but it’s less than it would have been if this had come out weeks ago.

    3. ” If and when populists become convinced that they can’t have an influence on policy or even have their votes respected within the context of liberal institutions, they won’t give up on influence or their leadership. They’ll give up on liberal institutions.”

      And they’ll give up on respecting the rule of law.

      We do not want a large part of our population thinking the only vote that Washington D.C. will respect is a vote from the rooftops.

    4. “Every Senator who wishes to place their seat in jeopardy by voting to overturn the votes of their own constituents ”

      Impeachment and removal of a president does not “overturn votes.”

      I never thought I’d have to explain that on a libertarian website.

      1. Removing President Trump from office by way of impeachment not only overturns the results of the 2016 election but also prevents voters from reelecting him as they might have in 2020 since he’s being impeached in an election year.

        You seem to have this issue where you imagine the facts rearrange themselves around your pronouncements. They don’t.

        1. “Removing President Trump from office by way of impeachment not only overturns the results of the 2016 election”

          No, it does not. Hillary Clinton does not become president if Trump is impeached. Mike Pence does. Informed voters know that when they vote. I’m sorry that you did not.

          “but also prevents voters from reelecting him as they might have in 2020 since he’s being impeached in an election year.”

          There is nothing wrong with that. It’s what the Founders intended.

  13. The legislature has the power of the purse. Except where the executive determines that policy is better served by the executive making the decision , like in the SCOTUS ruling about the Obamacare exchanges. Sorry, this principle has already been undermined by the previous administration and the judiciary. Being scrupulous on it over this, where no actual violation took place (as the funds were disbursed by the deadline) and bad motivation behind the delay is more assumed than proven seems a bit convenient.

  14. Great job Petey!

    Now do FISA warrants…

    1. Lol., well played

  15. Why do we have congress anyway? Can’t we just have a dictator like all the other countries with Big Men have? Much easier. Get rid of pesky journalists too.

    1. Trump supporters in a nutshell. Don’t forget to dress it up with a little sophistry so you can pretend to be libertarian.

      1. I don’t think they are even pretending anymore. I noticed a shift recently from many of them, where even the facade of wanting smaller government, a free market, or a non-interventionist foreign policy is totally gone.

        1. We got the three intellectual heavyweights agreeing with each other I see.

          Let me laugh harder.

        2. Are you done circle jerking with your socks yet?

        3. Three TDS victims lying to each other and agreeing that they are clever!
          How……………………….
          pathetic.

    2. “Get rid of pesky journalists too.”

      There will always be someone willing to lie for money or relevance. Look how little they get paid already, and yet there’s thousands of useless, sad, losers who tweet all day and claim that’s a legitimate job.

      1. But enough about the president.

        1. But enough about leftists

    3. This is such a dishonest summary of the argument I can’t help but laugh. Even baby jeffrey tries harder than this.

    4. Obama by-passed congress with executive DACA. Then ignored existing legislation with “prosecutorial discretion.” Had a kill list of people he wanted to drone strike. Launched a war in Libya without congressional approval. Spied on American citizens en masse. Bound the US to two international treaties without congressional oversight. Had his AG found in contempt of congress for refusing to allow oversight (which we all now know is sacrosanct). Had the IRS target his enemies and kept the political opposition from organizing. Man, those were the good ol’ days without Dictator Trump at the helm.

      1. Obama by-passed congress with executive DACA. Then ignored existing legislation with “prosecutorial discretion.”

        You really fucked that up!.
        For all the other uninformed Trumptard/goobers, here’s what really happened.

        All Obama did, re DACA, was use “prosecutorial discretion” to move Dreamers to a lower priority. This did NOTHING to diminish or reduce immigration enforcement, where, despite the crazed lies of hatred-driven GOP psychos, Obama’s deportations set record highs.

        This shows how bat-shit crazy the Trumptards are — and how they have brought American politics to so disgraceful a new low. The fuckers INVENT crazy reasons to “justify” Trump’s TREASONOUS attempts to subvert our elections — twice — Russia in 2016 and Ukraine now — while pissing and moaning about LEGITIMATE Presidential actions by that damn Kenyan nigger. (/sarc)

        Obama was the Chief Executive, dumbfucks, TOTALLY EMPOWERED to manage and supervise Executive Branch Agencies … within the law. So. stuff your shameful, anti-American bigotry up your lying, mind-controlled asses.

        Left – Right = Zero.
        (That for any mindless goobers who might wish to SCREECH, in their raging hatred, that I defended Obama’s Presidency … when I merely defended the truth, from the malicious slander of dancing puppets, BOTH left and right, as libertarians have been doing for over a half century — and a growing majority of Americans now agree.)

  16. I’m more than happy to impeach any president that doesn’t observe the separation of powers. And all congress members or administration officials in general that violate the enumerated powers. Let’s start holding everyone’s feet to that fire. let’s see who blinks first.

  17. “It has become increasingly clear that the president was pursuing a personal political agenda through his personal lawyer, not a national agenda through the formal diplomatic process.”

    If this is true, it only makes it more understandable to average people.

    One more time:

    Trump had just finished being subjected to a witch hunt over bogus allegations that he was collaborating with the Russians. Moreover, his own son was subjected to these false allegations.

    Before the smoke had even cleared from his exoneration, there’s Joe Biden on television bragging about killing a corruption investigation into Hunter’s shady dealings in Ukraine–and neither the press not the intelligence services does a thing?

    If Trump took this unfairness personally, that makes him ever more human.

    1. Incidentally, how is the FBI’s investigation into Joe Biden’s interference in loan guarantees to Ukraine progressing?

      If the answer is that there is no FBI investigation, then my next question is, “Why?”.

      1. MOAR CRAZED BULLSHIT BY KEN SCHULTZ!
        NOT QUITE AS CRAZY AS HIS **PROVEN** BULLSHIT ON RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016, AS PROVEN HERE:

        https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8092775

        Incidentally, how is the FBI’s investigation into Joe Biden’s interference in loan guarantees to Ukraine progressing?

        If the answer is that there is no FBI investigation, then my next question is, “Why?”.

        WIDELY KNOWN, IGNORANT DUMBASS.
        Pay attention. I’ll TRY to dumb it down enough for you and other more-psycho Trumptards.

        1) As PROVEN by the video of Biden’s statement, if was NOT Biden’s interference. He was ASSIGNED the task … by Obama.

        *** WHY?

        2) Because … lying sack of shit … the same demands were made by both the US and EU (as guarantors) and by the International Monetary Fund (lender) … because Ukraine was then among the worst credit risks in the world … BECAUSE of massive corruption.

        ****WHY WOULD SCHULTZ COSIGN A LOAN .. TO A TOTALLY CORRUPT GOVERNMENT … RISKING AMERICAN TAXPAYERS … WITH NO CONDITIONS AT ALL … WHICH THE LENDER WOULD HAVE REFUSED ANYHOW, SINCE THE LENDER HAD DEMANDED THE SAME CONDITIONS ,,, AS HAD THE OTHER CO-SIGNER, THE EUROPEAN UNION!

        *** OR … HOW BIG A THREAT TO AMERICAN TAXPAYERS WOULD A PRESIDENT KEN SCHULTZ BE? (smirk)

        3) Firing the Prosecutor was only ONE of SEVERAL conditions, by all three parties … the ONLY condition then-President, Petro Poroshenko, REFUSED to meet,

        ****PAY ATTENTION, EVEN IF BIDEN AND OBAMA SAID NOTHING …. AND EVEN IF THEY DID GUARANTEE THE LOAN ,.. THE LOAN WOULD STILL BE REJECTED … AS NOTED ABOVE. (Folks like Ken REQUIRE constant reminders)

        **** YOU ARE AN UNWITTING FOOL … EAGERLY MANIPULATED BY THE POLITICAL ELITES … REPEATEDLY POSTING CLAIMS .,.. ON ISSUES YOU ARE TOTALLY IGNORAT OF!!! (THE WORST BEING YOUR CRAZED BULLSHIT ON RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE … AS PROVEN AT THE LINK ABOVE … AND ON THE TWITTER FEED OF DONALD TRUMP JR!)

        4) Then Ukrainian President, Porosheko, was TOTALLY corrupt, as leader of THE corrupt Ukraine government … thus considered an ally and protector of the corrupt federal prosecutor.

        *****Hey, Ken, HOW corrupt was Poroshenko? (snort),
        At the next election, 2019, DESPERATE voters replaced him with Zelensky ,,, A FUCKING COMEDIAN! … WITH ZERO POLITICAL EXPERIENCE!! …. who had campaigned on a total housecleaning … and appointing honorable people to EVERY position of power!

        ***Poroskenko was THAT corrupt. As morally debased as … YOU.

        FOR THOUGHTFUL READERS: On the evidence, are many Trumptards even WORSE than ANY significant percentage of Bernie or Elizabeth supporters? Would Bernie or Elizabeth ABUSE PRESIDENTIAL POWER. by LYING to defend NAZI and RACIST supporters? Did they even HAVE nazi and racist supporters at Charlottesville? (the final question was sarcasm)

        Left – Right = Zero

        P.S. Ukraine has NOW opened a criminal investigation of corruption by Americans … NOT BIDEN …. but GIULIANI and Trump’s allies in the Ukraine debacle! … for violating Ukraine and international law, by surveilling our fired Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch … or was Giuliani just blowing smoke out his ass, yet again?

        Keep clinging to each other, Trumpsters, for comfort and solace, as your delusional reality continues to collapse. Dems are playing you for suckers, and you don’t even know it!

    2. By that logic, if I can call it that, Hillary could have used the Office of the Secretary of State to illegally have political opponents investigated due to the Benghazi hearings. Trump was right about one thing – he could shoot someone and his supporters wouldn’t care.

      1. I don’t follow your logic at all.

        The fact is that if Trump took this personally–because he and his son had just been subject to a bogus investigation where Biden was bragging on television about doing something illegal–then Trump taking it personally humanizes him.

        In Democrat terms, before we were talking about how and why money made it from Madison Guarantee to Bill Clinton’s reelection campaign fund by way of Hillary Clinton’s Whitewater deal. Once it stopped being about that and became about whether Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky, the legality of what happened went out the window in the court of public opinion.

        By pointing out how personally Trump took this, you’re not emphasizing how illegal it was. You’re humanizing him and making him seem more sympathetic to average people.

        It’s a failing effort.

        1. I don’t follow your logic at all.

          WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

          It’s a failing effort.

          You WINE LIKE A PUSSY.

          I DOCUMENT you as either fucking stupid, or a fucking liar.
          Your INSANE bullshit on Russian interference, PROVEN here.
          https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8092775

          Your equally crazy BULLSHIT on Biden and the loan Guarantees, just back a bit.

          LEARNING FACTS requires effort. intelligence and integrity.
          But dutifully repeating memorized soundbites, as programmed by your masters, requires … NO effort, NO intelligence and NO integrity … merely subservience to authority … as just another willing subject.

    3. “Trump had just finished being subjected to a witch hunt over bogus allegations that he was collaborating with the Russians. Moreover, his own son was subjected to these false allegations.”

      His son met with someone who said they worked for the Russian government and wanted to help Donald Trump win the election by giving him incriminating information on his opponent.

      I know you wish that this did not happen, but it happened. Junior admitted it. He released the e-mails proving it. And because neither he nor his father nor you are capable of shame, we all just let it slide.

      “Before the smoke had even cleared from his exoneration, there’s Joe Biden on television bragging about killing a corruption investigation into Hunter’s shady dealings in Ukraine–and neither the press not the intelligence services does a thing?”

      Biden bragged about no such thing. He bragged about sacking a corrupt prosecutor who wasn’t investigating shit. He did this on behalf of his boss and the entire Western world. Unless you think the IMF and the EU were desperately trying to protect Hunter Biden, you need to concede that Biden was not acting out of personal interest here.

      So actually what happened is that Trump had just gotten away with benefiting from a foreign government interfering in an American election, and tried to do it again. And you’re stupid enough to be fooled a second time.

      1. “His son met with someone who said they worked for the Russian government and wanted to help Donald Trump win the election by giving him incriminating information on his opponent.”

        What you described, there, isn’t a crime. There is no evidence of a crime there whatsoever.

        Did you not read the Mueller report? The only stone it left unturned was the question of whether Trump obstructed justice by telling his underlings not to testify. Not even Mueller believes that Trump or his kid was colluding with the Russians. That’s just coming from voices in your head.

        I know you wish meeting with people were illegal, but it isn’t.

        “Biden bragged about no such thing.”

        Watch him do it for yourself.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSF3reVr10

        They fired a prosecutor and quashed an investigation because Biden threatened to withhold their loan guarantees, and even if I hated Donald Trump with every bone in my body, I wouldn’t be willing to pretend Biden said anything other than what he did in that video.

        The fact is that Biden bragged on television about doing exactly what Trump was accused of doing, it was indefensible, and if that didn’t drive Trump half crazy at night, knowing what he and his son had been accused of, it certainly should have. Meanwhile, Trump knew that the FBI had been bugging his campaign based on a FISA warrant the FBI obtained using bogus information it knew to be bogus and it knew was gleaned from the Hillary Clinton campaign’s opposition research. Trump would have to be an idiot to trust the the FBI to investigate former Vice President Biden under those circumstances.

        And, again, if Trump took this stuff personally, that makes what he did seem incredibly illegal like real people.

        1. You moved the goalposts twice in one post.

          “What you described, there, isn’t a crime. There is no evidence of a crime there whatsoever.”

          Putting aside the question of whether soliciting information from a foreign government to influence an election is a “crime,” what you originally said was that Don Jr. was attacked with “false allegations” that he collaborated with Russians. But his e-mails prove he attempted to do just that.

          The Mueller report documented many attempts by multiple Trump campaign staffers to do exactly this as well. It did not prove that Trump knew about them.

          The video you linked does NOT show Biden bragging about “killing an investigation.” You are simply lying when you say it does. Again, Burisma was not under investigation at that time. Again, unless you are willing to argue that the IMF and the EU and Obama and Republican members of Congress wanted Shokin gone to kill a non-existent investigation into Hunter Biden, you need to abandon this fantasy. Joe Biden pressured for Shokin’s firing because Obama, his boss, told him to. Trump illegally withheld aid to hurt Joe Biden. These are facts.

          You are also lying when you say the FBI “bugged Trump’s campaign.” There is no evidence of this. The first FISA warrant on Carter Page was issued after Page LEFT the campaign. No one else on the campaign was surveilled at any time. Those FISA warrants were flawed, in the same way that all FISA warrants are flawed. The Feds leave out information favorable to the person they are targeting every goddamn day in this country. That is the process that Republicans created in the wake of the war on terror, and they only began thinking it might be wrong when one of their own got caught up in it. That isn’t libertarianism, it isn’t love for the constitution, and it isn’t what America is about. Fuck you for pretending to have a principled stand against such abuses.

          1. EXPOSED: KEN’S BULLSHIT ON BIDEN AND THE LOAN GUARANTEE TO UKRAINE
            https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8092808

            ALSO EXPOSES THE GULLIBILITY OF EVERY TRUMPSTER WHO SWALLOWS THIS BULLSHIT … IN DESPERATION … AS THEIR DEUSIONS CRUMBLE INTO DUST.

        2. Hey, KEN … LOSER … ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT TOPHER S IS CORRECT … AND YOU A FUCKING LIAR —= ON DON JR KNOWINGLY CONSPIRING WITH RUSSIA IS DETAILED HERE

          https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8092775

          Noe explain why … even in your perverted “mind” … it is NOT a crime .. to KNOWINGLY conspire with an adversary (Russia) .. to DESTROY a political opponent (Hillary) … ALSO PROVEN HERE — TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DESTROY ANOTHER OPPONENT (Biden) (second link requires a separate comment … WAIT FOR IT)

    4. Ken Schultz — STILL a crazy. fucking liar. A TRAITOR to American ideals.

      Trump had just finished being subjected to a witch hunt over bogus allegations that he was collaborating with the Russians.

      COWARDLY EVASION. THERE IS NO (SANE) DENIAL THAT RUSSIANS INFLUENCED THE 2016 ELECTION — AS PUBLICLY REQUESTED BY TRUMP, TO OVER 100 MILLION WITNESSES!

      HOW MUCH INFLUENCE WAS NEEDED BY RUSSIA, WIKILEAKS AND COMEY … IN AN ELECTIUON THAT TRUMP WON BY A TEENY-TINY 39,000 VOTERS, IN THREE STATES COMBINED??

      NOT A TYPO, THIRTY-NINE THOUSAND VOTERS … OUT OF 127 MILLION … OR 0.03% OF THE VOTE …. FACT, . BRAINWASHED GOOBERS.

      ****WITH SOLD PROOF THAT DONALD JUNIOR KNOWINGLY CONSPIRED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT — KNOWING THE RUSSSIAN GOVERNMENT WANTED HIS FATHER ELECTED

      Donald Junior KNOWINGLY conspired with the Russian government, KNOWING the Russian government wanted to help his dad win … PROOF as released to the public by ….. wait for it …. DONALD JUNIOR! … dumb as any other Trumptard.

      DOCUMENTED PROOF:

      Russian invitation to Donald Jr. Trump Tower meeting

      “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

      “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin”.

      Ken Schultz — STILL a crazy. fucking liar. A TRAITOR to American ideals.

      Trump had just finished being subjected to a witch hunt over bogus allegations that he was collaborating with the Russians.

      COWARDLY EVASION. THERE IS NO (SANE) DENIAL THAT RUSSIANS INFLUENCED THE 2016 ELECTION — AS PUBLICLY REQUESTED BYH TRUMP … HOW MUCH INFLUENCE WAS NEEDED BY RUSSIA WIKILEAKS ABND COMEY … IN AN ELECTIUON THAT TRUMP WON BY A TEENY-TINY 39,000 VOTERS, IN THREE STATES COMBINED??

      NOT A TYPO, THIRTY-NINE THOUSAND VOTERS … OUT OF 127 MILLION … OR 0.03% OF THE VOTE …. FACT. BRAINWASHED GOOBERS.

      ****WITH SOLD PROOF THAT DONALD JUNIOR KNOWINGLY CONSPIRED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT — KNOWING THE RUSSSIAN GOVERNMENT WANTED HIS FATHER ELECTED

      Donald Junior KNOWINGLY conspired with the Russian government, KNOWING the Russian government wanted to help his dad win … PROOF as released to the public by ….. wait for it …. DONALD JUNIOR! … dumb as any other Trumptard.

      DOCUMENTED PROOF:

      Russian invitation to Donald Jr. Trump Tower meeting

      “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

      “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin”.

      Ken Schultz — STILL a crazy. fucking liar. A TRAITOR to American ideals.

      Trump had just finished being subjected to a witch hunt over bogus allegations that he was collaborating with the Russians.

      COWARDLY EVASION. THERE IS NO (SANE) DENIAL THAT RUSSIANS INFLUENCED THE 2016 ELECTION — AS PUBLICLY REQUESTED BYH TRUMP … HOW MUCH INFLUENCE WAS NEEDED BY RUSSIA WIKILEAKS ABND COMEY … IN AN ELECTIUON THAT TRUMP WON BY A TEENY-TINY 39,000 VOTERS, IN THREE STATES COMBINED??

      NOT A TYPO, THIRTY-NINE THOUSAND VOTERS … OUT OF 127 MILLION … OR 0.03% OF THE VOTE …. FACT. BRAINWASHED GOOBERS.

      ****WITH SOLD PROOF THAT DONALD JUNIOR KNOWINGLY CONSPIRED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT — KNOWING THE RUSSSIAN GOVERNMENT WANTED HIS FATHER ELECTED

      Donald Junior KNOWINGLY conspired with the Russian government, KNOWING the Russian government wanted to help his dad win … PROOF as released to the public by ….. wait for it …. DONALD JUNIOR! … dumb as any other Trumptard.

      DOCUMENTED PROOF: Russian invitation to Donald Jr. Trump Tower meeting

      “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

      “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin”.

      Source: Donald Trump Jr’s own Twitter feed!!!

      =YESS!! Ken Schultz PROVEN a WACKED-OUT LIAR, by ,,, DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR!!! (smirk)

      LOCK THEM UP

      Junior is undeniably guilty. Will his father allow his son to spend the rest of his life in prison. Is Trump THAT evil?

      Trump Sr. BEGAN by LYING to the American people on the purpose of the meeting and, when he got caught, claimed he had no advance knowledge of it …. SO WHY DID HE LIE ABOUT WHAT HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT? … THAT fucking stupid! ???? ????

      If Trump did know, that makes him a co-conspirator in treasonous activity.
      Or will he allow his own son to be imprisoned … After SHITTING on his daughter, Ivanka, a Jew, when he LIED to defend neo-nazis at Charlottesville?

      This UNDENIABLE proof … on Don Jr’s own Twitter feed … was handed off to federal prosecutors at the Southern District of New York, by Mueller … TRUMP WILL BE ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED …. as he walks out of the White House, as an indictable ex-President. AND IMPRISONED … THAT is WHY he’s FREAKING OUT!!!

      Proof against Hillary? NONE
      And they VOTE!
      ROFLMAO

  18. I’m at best 50/50 in my approval of Trump’s job but his ability to make Suderman and his beltway buddies shit their pants and shout pedantic bullshit in an attempt to make him look bad is just unmatched.

    Keep crying Suderman your elitist impotence fuels my fire.

    1. Letting Trump get away with crimes to own the libertarians. Quite a take.

      1. Libertarian capitalists wouldn’t feel compelled to defend Trump so much if the Democrats weren’t openly advocating authoritarian socialism by way of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

        As Democrats become increasingly authoritarian and socialist, it is quite reasonable for libertarian capitalists to become more Republican.

        I’m about 50/50 on Trump as well, but I’ve got zero good to say about Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren. Explain why a libertarian capitalist should support any one of them. Go ahead. I dare you. They’re openly hostile to libertarian capitalism.

        1. Ken, you sick fuck, BOTH of your craziest tribal bullshit are exposed here, and just below it (look for mine if a later comment is posted above mine)

          https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8092824

          HAVE YOU NO SHAME AT ALL? … NOT EVEN A SMIDGEN???

  19. “One is that it has become increasingly clear that the president was pursuing a personal political agenda”

    No, it hasn’t.

    Also, upon further reading, it’s pretty clear that you’re once again choosing to interpret laws as you please so that you get your desired outcome. Hopefully, 4 years from now when he’s out of office, you’ll be able to take a step back and diagnose your TDS.

    1. ““One is that it has become increasingly clear that the president was pursuing a personal political agenda”

      No, it hasn’t.”

      It really has. If he were really concerned about fighting corruption, he would have asked for anti-corruption reforms that did not personally benefit himself. Since he only asked about Crowdstrike and Biden, we know that this was personal. The fact that he used his personal lawyer is also a pretty big red flag. But all of Trumpism is about ignoring the obvious.

      1. I don’t think you’re going to last the next couple years

      2. So because he didn’t address all possible corruption in Ukraine and prioritized the most recent and blatant example that affected the integrity of US elections, he’s making it personal?

        Just because something affects you doesn’t make it personal.

        1. “So because he didn’t address all possible corruption in Ukraine and prioritized the most recent and blatant example that affected the integrity of US elections, he’s making it personal?”

          Help me understand your thinking on this. Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin in 2015. Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden in 2019. How could Biden’s ask be the “most recent” example of corruption in Ukraine? And in what way did Biden’s demand on Ukraine–a demand that was, again, supported by the Western world at large–“affect the integrity of US elections?

  20. There is no reason to believe that the impoundment act applies to military aid.

    1. “”We’ve got him this time!” says increasingly nervous Democrat for the nth time.”

      It’s funny how often they move the goalposts. Launch codes, refusal to concede loss, pisstape, blackmail, emoluments, rigging, DNC hack, corruption, collusion, abuse of power, and now fucking impoundment. And I’m pretty sure I missed a few there.

      1. It’s almost like he’s bad in a lot of different ways. Impossible!

        1. Well, let us know when you prove any of those allegations.

          1. You keep denying the proof. (yawn)

    2. NOYB2
      There is no reason to believe that the impoundment act applies to military aidIt’s SPENDING, you crazed and desperate Trumptard.
      YOUR JOB TO CITE WHERE THE LAW EXCLUDES FOREIGN AID .. INSTEAD OF MORE PUSSY-WHINING.

  21. Having read the findings as best I could given my limited proficiency in legalese and bureaucratese, I’m not confident that Trump’s “withholding” of the funds was in fact a withholding but more of a threatened withholding. As I read it, the talk of “obligated” funds leads me to believe that the military can sign contracts against funds that haven’t yet been deposited in their accounts as long as such funds have been legally obligated to be deposited. Trump was doling out the funds in installments and telling them they couldn’t sign contracts against the rest of the funds because the funds might or might not be there. Had Trump not disbursed the rest of the funds, he would have been required to notify Congress that he was withholding the funds and since Trump did not notify Congress it means either that Trump had no intention of withholding the funds or that Trump was planning on illegally withholding the funds. Given that Trump did in fact disburse the funds, he certainly can’t be charged with illegally withholding the funds. The “withholding” of the funds seems to me to be that, in the normal course of events, the military could go ahead and sign contracts against money they hadn’t yet received so long as that money was the “the check’s in the mail” sort of money and by Trump’s telling them that the check wasn’t in the mail and might not ever be in the mail, he was not allowing them to spend money they hadn’t yet received and that he had no legal obligation to yet release since the deadline for sending the check had not yet arrived.

    It seems to me this is like me telling my landlord I’m not going to pay next month’s rent and the landlord threatening to sue me because he’s depending on my rent check to cover his own bills and he’s planning on writing those checks the day before I pay the rent. He can threaten all he wants, but he can’t actually sue me for not paying next month’s rent until it’s next month’s rent due day and I don’t in fact pay the rent. I have an obligation to pay my rent but no obligation to pay my rent ahead of time and there’s nothing illegal about threatening to not pay my rent, so long as I do in fact go ahead and pay the rent when it’s due.

    1. FUCKING LIAR — BY ONE OF THE “TARDEST” OF TRUMPTARDS

      Having read the findings as best I could given my limited proficiency in legalese and bureaucratese,

      You’d also have to be FUCKING ILLITERATE!@

      I’m not confident that Trump’s “withholding” of the funds was in fact a withholding but more of a threatened withholding

      How’d you miss THIS, you anti-American, lying sack of shit

      Here’s the TRUTH, loser – (Page 3)

      On July 25, 2019, OMB issued the first of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes withholding USAI funds from obligation.

      WHY IS THAT BEYOND YOUR READING COMPREHENSION?

      **** NINE instances of WITHHOLDING FUNDS

      (MORE PROOF THAT TRUMPOSTERS ARE TOTALLY CONTROLLED BY CRAZED CONSPIRACY THEORIES … ALL EVOLVING FROM THEIR PSYCHOTIC BITHERISM.)

  22. Who runs the GAO, who wrote this opinion, and who ap[pointed them? I cannot help but wonder if this opinion was penned by an Obama Resistance holdover.

    1. The difference between an Obama appointee, Bush appointee, or Clinton appointee is negligible.
      They’re all 99% likely to be corrupt scum

    2. Who runs the GAO, who wrote this opinion, and who ap[pointed them? I cannot help but wonder if this opinion was penned by an Obama Resistance holdover.ANY excuse to deny reality.

      WHY ARE ALL OBAMA SUPPORTERS LIARS …. BUT NO TRUMP SUPPORTERS, GOOBER?

    1. Anyone remember any other President who violated the law while in office?

      1. Probably should have pluralized that…

    2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAAA

      How does that compare with Trump seeking help from a foreign government, to destroy an opposing candidate … TWICE, chump.
      1) Hillary by Russian 2016
      2) Biden by Ukraine, now.

  23. That is the conclusion reached by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a sharply worded letter released this morning. The letter raises serious questions about whether the Trump administration violated the constitutional separation of powers.

    The more I think about this, the more this cracks me up.

    What this suggests is that Obama entering into the Iran deal and the Paris Climate accord were also violations of the constitutional separation of powers, yet no one was suggesting Obama be impeached.

    And no, this isn’t an “Obama did it too”, this is simply a procedural question– which is why the Iran and the Paris climate deals were non-binding. There was no treaty ratified by a representative body of the people.

    And further, had this REALLY been the issue all along, that would have been the charge from the start of this whole affair, because there was never any question as to whether Trump was threatening to withhold aid. The fact that this has “come to light” at the 11th hour just tells you how bullshit this whole thing is.

    1. And how bullshit Reason has become.

      1. And how bullshit Reason has become.

        I just PROVED you full of shit. Again. Just below, chump.

    2. The more I think about this, the more this cracks me up.

      THINK?? Cracks ME up that you “think” yourself capable … instead of pulling MORE lame (bat-shit crazy) excuses out of your ass,.

      What this suggests is that Obama entering into the Iran deal

      CONGRESS APPROVED THE IRAN DEAL, DUMBASS

      WASHINGTON — The Senate voted 98-1 on legislation giving Congress a chance to review and possibly reject any final nuclear deal with Iran. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, was the lone vote against the bill and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, did not vote.

      Google HR-1191.

      Umm, that’s a HOUSE resolution, which SHOULD tell (even) you that it also passed the House. The House and Senate, together, comprise the entire Congress!!

      So …

      The House unanimously approved HR 1191 – the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 on March 17, 2015.[1] The bill proposed requiring President Barack Obama to submit the details of a nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for review if negotiators reached a final agreement.

      Here’s the entire process summarized, by those crazy leftists at …. NATIONAL REVIEW! 🙂

      https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/11/iran-nuclear-deal-congress-review-obama-deal-was-important-inara/

      They didn’t like how it turned out, BUT conclude it was both legal and proper. (George Soros had not yet bought out and subverted them)

      and the Paris Climate accord were also violations of the constitutional separation of powers, yet no one was suggesting Obama be impeached.

      Not everyone is a liar and/or stupid. Pay attention, chump

      Does the Senate have to consent before the U.S. can become a party to these provisions?

      No. Article 4 of the Paris agreement doesn’t create a new international legal obligation. It reiterates the obligations already contained in Article 4 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States became a party to the Framework Convention after the Senate gave its advice and consent by an overwhelming vote in 1992. That’s why legal experts say a new round of Senate advice and consent is not needed. (See here and here.)
      https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/paris-climate-agreement-explained-does-congress-need-sign

      Links (“here and here”) at the source.,

      NEVER have so many Trumptards made so many fuckups on a single page here. Desperation???

      Just like Trump, they pull lame excuses put of their asses, with NO concern for facts, logic or relevance … solely to comfort each other … as they bellow and snarl at the sky.

    3. The more I think about this, the more this cracks me up.

      Cracks ME up that you “think” yourself capable … instead of pulling MORE lame (bat-shit crazy) excuses out of your ass,.

      What this suggests is that Obama entering into the Iran deal

      CONGRESS APPROVED THE IRAN DEAL, DUMBASS

      WASHINGTON — The Senate voted 98-1 on legislation giving Congress a chance to review and possibly reject any final nuclear deal with Iran. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, was the lone vote against the bill and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, did not vote.

      Google HR-1191.
      Umm, that’s a HOUSE resolution, which SHOULD tell (even) you that it also passed the House. The House and Senate, together, comprise the entire Congress!!

      So …

      The House unanimously approved HR 1191 – the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 on March 17, 2015. The bill proposed requiring President Barack Obama to submit the details of a nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for review if negotiators reached a final agreement.

      Here’s the entire process summarized, by those crazy leftists at …. NATIONAL REVIEW! ????

      https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/11/iran-nuclear-deal-congress-review-obama-deal-was-important-inara/

      They didn’t like how it turned out, BUT conclude it was both legal and proper. (George Soros had not yet bought out and subverted them)

      MORE PROOF REQUIRES A PART TWO

      1. PART TWO

        and the Paris Climate accord were also violations of the constitutional separation of powers, yet no one was suggesting Obama be impeached.

        Not everyone is a liar and/or stupid. Pay attention, chump

        Does the Senate have to consent before the U.S. can become a party to these provisions?

        No. Article 4 of the Paris agreement doesn’t create a new international legal obligation. It reiterates the obligations already contained in Article 4 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States became a party to the Framework Convention after the Senate gave its advice and consent by an overwhelming vote in 1992. That’s why legal experts say a new round of Senate advice and consent is not needed. (See here and here.)
        https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/paris-climate-agreement-explained-does-congress-need-sign

        The two links (“here and here”) are at the source.,

        NEVER have so many Trumptards made so many fuckups on a single page here. Desperation???

        Just like Trump, they pull lame excuses put of their asses, with NO concern for facts, logic or relevance … solely to comfort each other … as they bellow and snarl at the sky

  24. So what? The Executive and Congress break the law all the time. It wasn’t legal for the Executive to withhold the funds. ???????? But, what’s the remedy? There’s no victim. No one has standing. The remedy is to transfer the money. They did. End of story.

    What it doesn’t amount to is a High Crime and/or Misdemeanor.

    1. It won’t let me use emojis? The ???????? Was supposed to be the ok sign. Sorry.

  25. The poppycock has never been more pure than this…

  26. Based on precedent, Trump should face the same consequences that Barack Obama faced every time the GAO determined that one of his actions was illegal.

    1. Exactly. You will never see this discussed on Reason and the rest of the sniveling progressive shill media.

      1. You whiny pussies forget that Trump did it to
        a) BRIBE a foreign government into interfering in our election
        b) To promote his own re-election.

        Also, how did you miss that Trump demanded an ANNOUNCEMENT of a Biden invetsiga

        1. …. Also, how did you miss that Trump demanded an ANNOUNCEMENT of a Biden investigation … did NOT give a fuck if there was an actual invrstiga

  27. Shortly after senators took an oath to do “impartial justice,” the body unanimously moved to issue a summons to President Trump notifying him of their trial and the charges against him.

    LOL… these GOP crooks impartial? Yeah, right. Why should they get primaried when they’ve already got their cushy bureaucrat job. I wouldn’t cross Dear Leader in Kansass either.

    1. Of course they’re not impartial, and McConnell admitted as much. Neither are the Democrats. It’s Congress…it is an inherently political body driven by political and partisan interests. But the Senate majority still gets to make the rules for trial because the Constitution says so, regardless of how much you whine about their lack of impartiality.

      Apparently you’re too dim to understand that.

      1. Apparently, you are dedicated to being a psycho.
        How could you ignore the oath they swore to uphold????

        But the Senate majority still gets to make the rules for trial because the Constitution says so, regardless of how much you whine about their lack of impartiality.

        THE SWORE TO AN OATH … PROMISING THE IMPARTIALITY YOU SNEER AT. It’s YOU whining, liar.

  28. The Government Accountability Office says Trump’s spending delay was illegal.

    According to the unaccountable government agency run that hasn’t been run by a Republican appointee in over 20 years, and which said Obamacare was a fiscally responsible bill that would pay for itself.

    Incidentally, it’s only illegal if the Senate decides to make an issue of it by removing the President from office, which isn’t going to happen. Otherwise it’s de facto consent.

    1. More crazed bullshit, no source

      ESPECIALLY full of shit on GAO/Obamacare — which made no such conclusion, which is a CBO function, not theirs.

      They tested the PROCEDURES — same as here — filing 15 false applications for exchanges — concluding that THE PROCEDURES COULD NOT PREVENT FRAUD.

      So you’re over a dozen massive lies here. So far.

  29. You have to have the reasoning skills of a child to believe this is anything other than the deep state in the death throes. Let’s apply the same scrutiny to the master of executive governing, Barry Obama.

    1. Let’s apply the same scrutiny to the master of executive governing, Barry Obama.

      Lame. NOT the issue here,
      Learn the issue and get back to us.

      Also learn what truth means.

  30. Can someone link me to the GAO letters about its opinion on the War Powers Act and the actions of the (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump) administrations?

  31. “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

    ― James Madison

    1. Have a 16-year-old explain the meaning of that.
      And that’s what TRUMP did!

  32. Hey Reason, did you know that most citizens break 2-3 laws every day? Do we need to go after ourselves for being such wild criminals? Perhaps and I know this is a crazy idea but maybe, just maybe your making a mountain out of a mole hill. With all the illegal crap past presidents have gotten away with your not making yourself look like the Knight of Justice when you try and take a stance against Trump on this minor incident. Your acting like the progressive left when you do and in the mind of most middle of the road to right leaning people you look like the disgruntled left that’s grasping what whatever it can to try and get Trump. The more you do this the more you end up propping up his supporters.

    The people are fed up with and no longer trust people who act like their elitists and that’s how you come across when you do things li this. Focus on the important stuff.

    1. Hey dumbass.
      That was GAO.

      And this is both bullshit and irrelevant,

      did you know that most citizens break 2-3 laws every day?

      You’re like w whiny child, caught in the act, “But, Mommy, HE DID IT FIRST

      The more you do this the more you end up propping up his supporters.

      His supporters NEED help. 51% of Americans are likely to vote AGAINST Trump this year, and only 44% to vote FOR him.

      He can’t lose anything. Don’t forget, he won the Electoral College by a TEENY TINY 39,000 voters … 0.03% of total voters … which came entirely from interference by Russia, Wikileaks and Comey.

  33. Yet the appropriated money WAS spent as Congress designated. I won’t argue that at least part of Trump’s motive was to dig up dirt on the Bidens to benefit him in the campaign. But no one is asking the obvious question: Should we look into the whole Ukraine/Biden angle? After all, the Hunter Biden portion of it reeks of corruption, and VP Dad Joe was the Obama administration point man on Ukraine at the very same time. Now Dad Joe wants to be president. Should we not ask Ukraine to provide us with information related to a person who wants to be the POTUS?

    1. Not to mention that Joe Biden very publicly admitted to openly threatening to withhold Congressionally allotted aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating his son.

      Funny how the GAO doesn’t seem to think that was illegal.

      1. The prosecutor was not investigating his son. You are lying.

        1. “After I first reported it in a column, the New York Times and ABC News published similar stories confirming my reporting.

          Joe Biden has since responded that he forced Shokin’s firing over concerns about corruption and ineptitude, which he claims were widely shared by Western allies, and that it had nothing to do with the Burisma investigation.

          Some of the new documents I obtained call that claim into question.”

          In a newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.

          -John Solomon/The Hill

          1. I guess you don’t know what you claim you know. Oh, wait…now you’ll tell us that Shokin was lying in his affidavit. Of course.

            1. …Of course Shokin was lying. The entire Western world wanted him gone because he was corrupt. It is amazing that you are placing your trust in him. But then, you place your trust in Trump, an obviously untrustworthy person. You place your trust in John Solomon, a reporter whose work has been so discredited that he was moved from news to opinion at the request of his colleagues at the Washington Examiner–hardly a liberal publication–and who was literally a part of this conspiracy.

              Idiocy.

              1. The entire Western world wanted him gone…

                According to Biden and all of the media regurgitating Biden. Crooks don’t generally admit the prosecutors were onto something.

                You’re pretty fucking naive for someone claiming to be a libertarian.

                1. There are plenty of primary source documents from around this time proving that Shokin was seen as corrupt and that his ouster was supported by the IMF, the EU, and even Republican members of Congress. I’d tell you to Google them, but then you’ll probably just claim that Biden used Obama’s time machine to plant them.

                  And where did I claim to be a libertarian?

    2. After all, the Hunter Biden portion of it reeks of corruption,

      Only to brainwashed suckers … CLUELESS that Trump demanded NO investigation of Hunter … only his cult, AFTER it all exploded in their puss.

  34. Extremely shallow and partisan thinking, should not even be in a Libertarian perspective.
    Pretty dumb to think that a slight delay, (two weeks ) is the same as not spending. I see nothing that says a president has to immediately spend money congress appropriates.
    I guarantee that if we were to decide that any money that is appropriated by congress and not spent within two weeks is an impeachable offense, that EVERY president would/should be impeached.
    If we were to declare that investigating a political rival for corruption was a crime, then Obama and Hillary are guilty for investigating Trump.
    When a person declares candidacy for president it is supposed to be open season on looking into them, it certainly was for Democrats looking into Trump.
    It seems Reason only approves of investigation of conservatives and Libertarians, but not Democrats, even when they brag about the corruption on national TV.
    I need a good Libertarian magazine like Reason USED to be.

    1. It wasn’t two weeks. It was 55 days.

      The investigation into Trump under the Obama administration was kept secret until after the election. Trump wanted a PUBLIC announcement by Ukraine that they were investigating Biden. That’s all the difference you need between the two of them.

    2. <blockquote? I see nothing that says a president has to immediately spend money congress appropriates.NOBODY says otherwise. You’ll never see anything, if you remain clueless on what to look for!

      If we were to declare that investigating a political rival for corruption was a crime, then Obama and Hillary are guilty for investigating Trump.

      Full of shit here, too. Hillary did no such thing. And Obama acted on the entire intelligence community saying Russia was interfering to help Trump … with LOTS of proof.

      I need a good Libertarian magazine like Reason USED to be.So do I, but more for today’s total suckups to the alt-right.
      Libertarians do not make hysterical observations, based on lies and brainwashing.

      And libertarians have ALWAYS been NEITHER left nor right, which says all we need to know about you.

  35. The article is about a procedural dispute, not criminal activity. The Executive Branch decides foreign policy. Words mean things. It’s the same idea as whether to file a tax extension or not. Or whether to toss the red flag in football. There are procedural rules (“laws”?) that prescribe what happens next. There are a lot of terms being batted around with differing opinions between legal bureaucrats in GAO and OMB, e.g., “opinion”, “withheld” vs. “delayed” or “held up”, “independent council”, blah, blah, blah. Nothing new about this. Some legal bureaucrat now has another opinion. So what. They’ve been back and forth about this for months. It’s one more dispute for a court to settle, if Schumer wants to pursue it and IF there’s anything to settle at all. Kinda like Obama Admin’s secret decision to send a pallet of cash to Iran in the middle of the night. Nope… Pelosi and the Dems were talking about impeaching Trump LONG before any Ukraine question arose. The money was delayed not withheld and now some attorney has another opinion about the timing, similar to all the differing staffers opinions and assumptions about The Big Phone Call. And they’ve already determined there was no QPQ. There’s nothing new happening here. The formal articles have now been submitted; there was no mention in them about ANY specific crime. And the wording and terms aren’t plastic when considering an actual high crime or misdemeanor. This is more Democrat marketing for the 2020 election. Alexander Hamilton described what’s now happening in Federalist #26. This is not about any high crime or misdemeanor; it’s all about political jockeying and it is a miscarriage of justice regardless of your opinion of Trump and regardless which party you favor. No crime was committed. No crime has been accused in the articles of impeachment. Pelosi and Schiff know this. But, they couldn’t prevent Trump’s 2020 election any other way. (Oh, and there’s that little thing about the 1999 U.S./Ukraine Treaty Bill Clinton signed and no one’s mentioned….)

    1. The article is about a procedural dispute

      Which broke the law. Are you lying about the GAO Report, or jabbering about something you never read? Those are the only options hre.

  36. FBI lies to obtain surveillance, plays around with texts to achieve certain means

    “Well certain mistakes were made”

    Trump temporarily withholds aid which eventually reaches the intended target

    “Impeach! Impeach!”

    Yes, it’s was wrong for Trump to withhold that aid. It’s not an impeachable conduct unless there was criminal QPQ. Seriously what happens in a real trial when the prosecution lies to obtain evidence against the defendant? We should take them and their supposed witnesses seriously from then on? The judge who throw the case out of declare a mistrial.

    There was essentially no deposition process in this impeachment. The democrats thew a bunch of “evidence” from a indicted man at the last second after holding onto the impeachment articles for 4 weeks, and no republican in the house had the opportunity to question Parnas.

    The impeachment is obviously a process that can be hijacked by a majority party in the house, we just don’t see it too much because it doesn’t happen that much. But it could, and has been, turned into a witch hunt. If the house can selectively choose the when and how of the witnesses and evidence at their whim, their case loses credibility. This Parnas guy went on TV and blabbed about his side of the history for all to see, which impacts the “defense” in the “trial”

    Yeah, I get it, it’s a political process, not due process. So we have to exercise extreme amount of caution and grimly observe all protocols to take out a terrorist general, but we should smile like some morons while the FBI and the democrats play by their own rules to remove a duly elected president.

    1. How many moons circle YOUR planet.
      It’s impeachable because he withheld taxpayer dollars, illegally, to bribe another country into ANNOUNCING an investigation of his political opponent.

      Are you also ignorant that he wanted an ANNOUNCEMENT .., and didn’t give a shit about an actual INVESTIGATION? Why would he do that … except to feed his bullshit machine, for more brainwashing of his cult, as he did to you?

  37. Let’s see. Enacting DACA by executive order after Congress specifically refused to enact it as law, spending billions, is a policy dispute to the deep state. Delaying money to a foreign Government for a short time is unlawful to the deep state. I am very unhappy that old Trumpo released the money but I guess he had to or be a law breaker. I want Trump convicted and turned out of office for his crime and Obama forced to pay back all the funds spent on DACA. He has the money to his friends do.

    1. Sorry, he has the money OR his friends do.

    2. Reason is a sewer of propaganda.

      1. +1000

        Its unreason now.

    3. <blockquote<Let’s see. Enacting DACA by executive order after Congress specifically refused to enact it as law,Didn’t need a law. All he did was drop Dreamers to the lowest priority-.
      1) He is in charge of managing the executive branch. Read the Constitution.
      2) And his deportations were at record highs.
      3) And your closing comment is just as ignorant.

      So your faith the Trump has allowed you to be used as a puppet, dancing on a string, at the extreme edge of the alt-right.

      Delaying money to a foreign Government for a short time is unlawful to the deep state

      It was NOT a short time.
      It BROKE THE LAW.

      AND NOW YOU CALL YOURSELF A LIAR!
      . I am very unhappy that old Trumpo released the money but I guess he had to or be a law breaker.So
      1) You were full of shit on the law
      2) You support Russia over an ally — same as Trumpass.

      and Obama forced to pay back all the funds spent on DACA.

      You’re full of shit on that too, as explained at the top.

      Why are so many Trumptards so totally lacking in basic moral values?
      So eager to be manipulated?

  38. Another day, another Reason article complaining that a politician is thwarting a government spending program.

    What else is new?

    1. What else is new?

      That’s not the issue.
      And the massive lies and denials by Trump supporters are nothing new. Predictable, actually.

  39. Let’s see now…they’ve determined that the delay in Ukraine’s funds was illegal. Wouldn’t that ALSO mean that Biden’s threat to delay the funds if the prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn’t fired would ALSO be illegal? It would have been a delay of the funds, after all.

    And Trump didn’t THREATEN anyone. The funds were delayed because the government there changed, and they wanted to make sure it wasn’t corrupt before they released the funds. At no time was it made contingent on anything Trump asked for.

    If Ukraine hadn’t fired that prosecutor, it WOULD have been Biden, HIMSELF, delaying the billion dollars in aid. I don’t see this as solely a Trump issue. If it was illegal for Trump, it would have been DOUBLY so for Biden, since Biden actually engaged in extortion — fire this guy, and do it before I get on my plane, or you don’t get a billion dollars in aid. He BRAGGED about it, on VIDEOTAPE.

    Trump may get dinged for this…but if HE gets dinged, and goes to jail over it, Biden should be his frelling cellmate.

    1. Let’s see now…they’ve determined that the delay in Ukraine’s funds was illegal. Wouldn’t that ALSO mean that Biden’s threat to delay the funds if the prosecutor looking into Burisma wasn’t fired would ALSO be illegal? It would have been a delay of the funds, after all.

      Yes, you are forced into that conclusion. If we accept this reasoning, Biden not only violated the law, but is no longer eligible to hold the office of the president.

      1. No, only the uninformed are forced into that conclusion. Biden didn’t withhold anything. There were loan guarantees, as opposed to aid already appropriated by Congress, that were withheld. Biden wasn’t the president and couldn’t withhold it, and it wasn’t for personal reasons anyway, as the EU, IMF and US Government all wanted the prosecutor fired for not investigating corruption. Was the official position of the US Government, the EU and the IMF that Biden needed to be investigated? Or was that just for Trump’s own personal benefit? I think we both know the answer.

        1. “Biden wasn’t the president and couldn’t withhold it, and it wasn’t for personal reasons anyway, as the EU, IMF and US Government all wanted the prosecutor fired for not investigating corruption.”

          How do you know, with certainty, that it wasn’t for personal reasons? Do you have access to the case files that the (fired) prosecutor was pursuing? No, you don’t.

          Indeed, there is significant evidence that Burisma was being investigated, which directly brings in Biden’s kid and the presence of very “personal reasons” that you deny.

          1. By the way, it’s utter nonsense to suggest that Biden -acting on behalf of the president-“ couldn’t withhold it” (the aid).

            Since Obama directed him to handle the Ukraine mess, Biden had delegated authority to do exactly that-and more.

          2. ““Biden wasn’t the president and couldn’t withhold it, and it wasn’t for personal reasons anyway, as the EU, IMF and US Government all wanted the prosecutor fired for not investigating corruption.”

            How do you know, with certainty, that it wasn’t for personal reasons?”

            The question you’re asking is literally answered by the statement you quoted right above it! Do you think the EU, IMF, and US government all wanted Shokin fired to protect Hunter Biden too?!

            Shokin was not. investigating. corruption. If anything, getting him fired and replaced placed Burisma under MORE danger, not less.

            1. “The question you’re asking is literally answered by the statement you quoted right above it! Do you think the EU, IMF, and US government all wanted Shokin fired to protect Hunter Biden too?!”

              Non sequitur. Biden’s decision re: firing the prosecutor/withholding aid on the basis you identify doesn’t eliminate his doing it for personal reasons ( I.e., helping preserve his kid’s job). The reasons can be mutually inclusive.

              Ditto what Trump did. He acted on behalf of the USA and for his own advantage.( The former is evidenced by the plural “we” in sentence one or two of the CALL transcript.) In fact, it’s Trump’s use of the word we, principally, which ends any serious impeachment consideration. He evinced a policy threshold, not a personal one.

              Finally, feel free to prove that Burisma wasn’t being investigated by the fired prosecutor. There’s ample evidence to the contrary.

              1. Edit: Sentence one or two of second or third paragraph.

              2. “Biden’s decision re: firing the prosecutor/withholding aid on the basis you identify doesn’t eliminate his doing it for personal reasons”

                So the mere *possibility* that Joe *might* have had personal reasons, speculation about intent without any actual evidence at all, in addition to the widely known official reasons, is sufficient to predicate an investigation ask of a foreign government? Nah.

                1. The clear conflict of interest and action taken by the Ukrainian government is much, much more than enough to warrant investigation.

                  1. Be specific with your psycho bullshit.

                    Or are you pissed, because Ukraine has opened a criminal investigation of Trump’s allies, for crimes already bragged about by Giuliani, which could also implicate Trump as the ringleader of the crimes against former Ambassador, Yovanovitch — which would be a severe violation of Ukrainian and international law, regarding the safety and immunity of senior diplomats in a foreign country … unless Rudy was just blowing smoke out his ass,

                2. So the mere *possibility* that Joe *might* have had personal reasons,

                  There was NO possibility ,..,. in the video of Biden bragging he got Ukraine to comply with demands of the US, EU and IMF — the video lied about so blatantly by Trumptards — Biden BEGINS by saying he was performing an assigned task .. joked that he get all the worst tasks … and Obama was confirmed as the decision maker less than a minute later,

                  Sorry, but things aren’t true, just because you want them to be.

              3. “Non sequitur. Biden’s decision re: firing the prosecutor/withholding aid on the basis you identify doesn’t eliminate his doing it for personal reasons ( I.e., helping preserve his kid’s job). The reasons can be mutually inclusive.”

                If your boss wants you to fire someone you hate for valid reasons and then you do it on behalf of your boss, H.R. investigating you for firing that person for personal reasons would be a stupid waste of time.

                “Ditto what Trump did. He acted on behalf of the USA and for his own advantage.( The former is evidenced by the plural “we” in sentence one or two of the CALL transcript.) In fact, it’s Trump’s use of the word we, principally, which ends any serious impeachment consideration. He evinced a policy threshold, not a personal one.”

                Just stupid. There is no argument that investigating Biden executing Obama’s legal orders in Ukraine was so important that it merited withholding military aid to fight the Russian invasion. None. In no way can that plausibly be said to be in the public interest. The facts that Trump did not go through normal channels, used his personal lawyer to further this pressure campaign, hid the call with classified information, and released the aid only after the whistleblower went to Congress all additionally point to the fact that this was done for personal gain rather than in the public interest.

                To deny this is just denial.

                “Finally, feel free to prove that Burisma wasn’t being investigated by the fired prosecutor. There’s ample evidence to the contrary.”

                The burden is on you to prove that any such investigation was underway, and that Shokin–who was, again, notorious for falling down on the job and not actually investigating corruption–was doing so in good faith.

          3. I know that the official positions of the US Government, the EU and the IMF was the at the prosecutor needed to be fired. I know they wanted him fired for NOT investigating corruption. I know that Hunter Biden was NEVER under investigation to begin with. And I know that the Burisma investigation wasn’t even active at the time. OMFG, Trump supporters are some of the most uninformed people on earth.

              1. And Ukraine’s President at the time … who refused to fire the corrupt Prosecutor … the ONLY demand he refused by the US, EU and IMF … was so TOTALLY corrupt himself .. that he was voted out of office … BY A COMEDIAN … with ZERO political experience .. who promised a TOTAL housecleaning, replacing EVERYONE in a position of power, with people of integrity.

                Despite all that, Trump DEFENDS both the corrupt prosecutor and the corrupt former President … akin to Trump’s “love” of the dictators running China, North Korea and Russia … while he SHITS on all our allies … and DEFENDS Russia’s invasion of Crimea (in Ukraine).

                Ukraine has FINALLY opened a criminal investigation of Americans! … RUDY GUILIANI and OTHER TRUMP CRONIES (hahaha)… for violating both Ukrainian and international laws … when Rudy conspired to damage and replace Marie Yovanovitch, our fired Ambassador to Ukraine. (Or was Rudy blowing smoke out his ass, again?)

  40. Jesus Christ could appear and say Trump broke the law and Trumptards still wouldn’t care…

    1. Jesus Christ could appear and say that Trump didn’t break the law, and you Tide Pod Gourmands still wouldn’t care . . .

      1. The Tide Pods consumers are Trump supporters. And people say he broke the law because he did – and that includes the GAO and the Defense Department. And then there are the witnesses who keep testifying as to his knowledge, involvement in and approval of withholding the money. But it doesn’t matter to you, does it? I guess you are too busy swallowing Tide Pods.

        1. “I’m not you are” is not a winning conversational strategy, even from a Tide Pod Gourmond such as yourself.

          By the way, you’ll really like the Draino. Try it!

          1. So … YOU liked gargling with Drano … and are wacky enough to brag about it!

  41. “By working in the country without citizenship, the illegal aliens broke the law”

    Well that’s it. Now we let the government deport them as soon as the court gives the ok.

  42. It seems that President Trump is guilty of having DELAYED making the congressionally appropriated funds AVAILABLE.

    In doing so he MAY HAVE violated the law because the president is constitutionally obliged to spend that money in the ways that Congress has authorized. I read the GAO letter of accusation, it appears to be correct for as much as I have any ability to tell. However, I would be very surprised if there is a single president in modern history who has not equally violated this law, if not much worse.

    Has there been a single president who has fully complied with all of Congress’ mandates?

    Supposedly, Trump could have filed for a legal delay of those funds, but as the Ukranians were very cooperative, such an overt action doesn’t make sense, and it would have sent an excessively tough, unwarranted message. This is not to diminish Trump’s other, possibly primary, political motives. We do not know.

    Trump was not ONLY pursuing a personal political agenda through his personal lawyer, but it was ALSO a well-justified national agenda which most definitely should have gone through the formal diplomatic process, BUT which did not happen when it should have, when Joe Biden broke the law by failing to acknowledge and report a clear conflict of interest and, in fact, denied that there was a conflict of interest which was prima-facie false.

    Both Trump’s and Biden’s actions were, at the very least, equally unethical. We do not know if Joe might be worse because, to this day, his unethical lapse has not come close to being minimally investigated. In fact, it has never been officially investigated at all.

    Biden was going to withhold congressionally mandated funds in a quid-pro-quo based on a well-established assessment that the Ukraine was not cooperating with anti-corruption investigations and enforcement. So the Prosecutor General was fired. The PG who took his place never followed through either and approximately 9 months later Burisma was let off the hook with a significant, but relatively small fine, despite that the evidence against it was very substantial. When this happened, there was not so much as a peep in the Obama/Biden administration. That lends great doubt to the stated purpose, even if true. So much for a concern for corruption.

    Lastly, while congress has the power of the purse, the executive has the power of foreign policy.

    Obviously, the president cannot arbitrarily obstruct the laws and intent of congress, nor can he commandeer or manipulate its funds for his own political or presidential purposes, but does anyone really suggest that the president has no power to withhold funds to a foreign nation when there is a legitimate concern as to whether it may harm the interests of the United States, or the president’s foreign policy? To be clear, it is well debatable as to whether, or to what extent, that such is the situation here.

    If congress decides to give a billion dollars to Iran because they believe Rouhani is a great guy and he deserves nuclear arms, despite his clear terrorist activities against us, are we saying that the president’s hands are tied? I am pretty sure not.

    I am no expert on this issue, but I really think this article, while perhaps legally accurate, is a load of crap in the context in which it is presented. I very much believe that there are relevant, competing laws on this issue and that this far from the whole story.

    1. I agree with you.

      I actually feel like I’m going insane when I hear the arguments of otherwise reasonable people that the Bidens should not be investigated in an election year, while jumping all over every goddamn aspect of Trump’s life (in an election year).

    2. In doing so he MAY HAVE violated the law

      The evidence is overwhelming. And why would you comment on something you obviously never read? Just another knee-jerk tribal defense of Trump, no different than the lame excuses of Bernie’s cult.

      Trump claims to be America First. but it’s Trump first, and America’s core values last. Can you name another President who even came close to Trump’s blatant lying about Charlottesville, that his nazi and racist supporters were victims of mass assaults?

      Are you aware that only white nationalists were convicted and imprisoned for the riots and violence at Charlottesville and elsewhere? The jurors who rendered the the guilty verdicts, also voted Trump guilty of being a sameful liar. The prosecutions and convictions were by Trump’s own DOJ. Do you even care?

      Would you lie to defend nazis and racists within the crazed alt-right?

  43. Unfortunately the Law states that appropriations must be released by the end of the fiscal year, which they were with time to boot. If those funds were not released by the end of the year the Executive or agencies would have had to provide a written notice within 15 days after the end of the fiscal year explaining why funds were not released for any reason whatsoever (there are no limitations on why the executive and agencies might withheld funds), at which time whoever wants the funds may complain and start a civil (not criminal) proceeding demanding the funds. Effected people can then sue the executive in court for release of funds… this is not a criminal proceeding but tort. The executive may present a defense of “because, F U” and there are no restrictions on why funds were not released. Under Law the whole matter is dropped if the funds are released or the court decides FU is good enough.

    Appropriated funds are always released after the end of the fiscal year with a complaint. This is is not something new, except that this is the first time that anyone has complained that appropriations were released before the end of the fiscal year but not when they wanted “because they hate Trump” and the fucktards at Reason agree. This is a Schiff/GAO stunt who have no authority whatsoever to proclaim that tort law which was not broken is somehow criminal.

    Every time I try to come back to Reason because I’m actually libertarian, I find the place infected with authoritarian puritan reflexively anti-democratic retards without any respect for law and process… tort be damned if it effs Trump – we want Bernie because the the worst case scenario is better than the imperfect.

    This place is full of purity testing evil authoritarian (small l liberian petty warlord) little pukes.

    This is why I rarely come to Reason for reason anymore.

    1. No. They are supposed to be released in time *to be fully spent* before the end of the fiscal year. This was not.

        1. Are you lying or just profoundly ignorant? Has to be one of those, as proven here.
          https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8090319

      1. “…They are supposed to be released in time *to be fully spent* before the end of the fiscal year…”

        Yeah, as if the granting party controls the spending of that grant.
        You.
        Are.
        Full.
        Of.
        Shit.

        1. Yeah, as if the granting party controls the spending of that grant.
          You.
          Are.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.

          Somebody is. You. It’ s the law which controls it, as proven here:
          https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8090319

          Why do you always rage, fume, assault and deny, but never provide an ounce of proof … which those you assault often do? Or is the cause of your rage that your “thoughts” are almost always wrong — so you attack people for … your own errors and ignorance. Why?

          And since there is no officlal Thought Police in America, why have you appointed yourself to that role?

    2. This is from attorney Alan Dershowitz: The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.
      To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.
      Even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not — the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents.
      If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law.

    3. This is why I rarely come to Reason for reason anymore.

      … and why you LIED about the law.

      Every time I try to come back to Reason because I’m actually libertarian,

      We indeed have our share of lying scum authoritarians like you. Most are worshippers in Ron Paul’s authoritarian/bigotry cult.

      1. Thanks, he managed to show why Dershowitz is such a lying putz!

        And can anything be funnier than Trumpsters citing a Harvard professor!

  44. Can a brother get a unbiased, non-hysterical opinion on this? Is it so unique in the realm of presidential administration shenanigans that it should be singled out as having risen to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors or not?

    1. You defend Trump bribing a foreign government to destroy a political opponent for 2020 .. which is even worse than him telling Putin to do so in 2016 (with tens of millions of witnesses)?

      Are you even aware that Trump did not demand an investigation at all … merely that Ukraine announce an investigation? Why would he do such a thing, except to create lies for his tweets and the further brainwashing of his base cult of worshippers?

  45. We are all libertarians here right? This is contract law and the evil orange man fulfilled his contract. The Reason editors really want me to give up Remy because he’s associated with a big bag of thoughtless Reason Editorial dicks.

    Take a step back and enjoy 3/4 of a win once in a while and stop being such c**ts all of the time.

    1. We are all libertarians here right?

      Never more than 2-7, based on the issue.

      Since this has nothing to do with contract law, I will assume (for now) that your a fake libertarian, under the statist/racist Ron Paul.

  46. Was there a deadline to spend the money?

    Was the money spent by the deadline?

    1. NOT THE ISSUE. Why do so many Trumptards swallow such self-evident bullshit?

  47. The GAO does not decide what is lawful or not. That is the Executive and judicial branch.

    These bureaucrats are getting real desperate.

    I guess the GAO didnt find it illegal when Obama sent Iran pallets of cash without the Houses approval. You now, the House is constitutionally required to originate all treasury expenditures.

    1. MORE BULLSHIT FROM A HOPELESSLY BRAINWASHED TRUMPSTER!!

      I guess the GAO didnt find it illegal when Obama sent Iran pallets of cash without the Houses approval.

      IT WAS THEIR OWN FUCKING MONEY, DOOFUS … WHICH HAD BEEN SEIZED AND FROZEN BY US AND SEVERAL OTHER COUNTRIES … AS PART OF THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE US (UNDER REAGAN) , THE UN AND EU.

      UMMM, MAKING A DEAL IS KINDA DIFFICULT, IF YOU REFUSE TO RELEASE MONEY STOLEN FROM THE OTHER PARTY! 🙂

      AND YOU’RE AGAIN BABBLING PSYCHO BULLSHIT

      The House unanimously approved HR 1191 – the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 on March 17, 2015. The bill proposed requiring President Barack Obama to submit the details of a nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for review if negotiators reached a final agreement.

      It gets daffier ,…

      You now, the House is constitutionally required to originate all treasury expenditures.

      *** IT WAS NOT A TREASURY EXPENDITURE

      But keep slurping Trump’s schwance!

      p.s. Trump, having fucked up the deal, now has LESS than what Obama started with. NO sanctions from the EU and UN, who all say Trump is full of shit on Iran’s compliance. Trump was totally and publicly humiliated, by Obama, at a Washington Press Corp dinner, on … Obama’s birthplace .. to gales of laughter. We know Trump as a vengeful prick, How much damage might America suffer, as he continues trying to destroy Obama … as punishment, for defending himself from a crazed conspiracy freak?

    2. Incorrect. The GAO is part of Congress’ oversight of the Executive Branch. And the Defense Department also determined it was illegal to withhold the money, which is why Trump released it when he did. I’m not sure why Trump supporters keep flocking to a Libertarian site and then act surprised that Libertarian commentators are critical of Turnip. Shouldn’t you be posting on InfoWars?

      1. “…Turnip…”

        Lefty ignoramuses spend half their lives coming up with nick-names which embarrass 1st-grade kids.
        Seek help

  48. The Founders never intended that a POTUS who refused to spend money be impeached. This government has gone thru the looking glass, Alice

    1. The Founders never intended that a POTUS who refused to spend money be impeached.

      Why do you LIE, so blatantly, about this issue.

      Oh, wait. Trump warned us about you people. Said you’d lie to defend him … even from shooting a man to death on Fifth Avenue, with witnesses.
      And you accepted so egregious an insult!

      1. “Why do you LIE, so blatantly, about this issue.”

        Why do you hope people buy your bullshit?
        Fuck off and die, Hihn.

        1. Why do you hope people buy your bullshit?

          He’d already proven it, here:
          https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8090319

          Fuck off and die, Hihn.

          That’s how people fume and rage when they have no proof themselves, and have been humiliated by undeniable proof from another.

          You think readers are too stupid to see your never-ending pattern?

  49. It’s nice that the Ds have staked their political futures on socialism and not giving a foreign government taxpayer money fast enough and/or investigating large amounts of money being kicked back to US officials.
    Good look, Ds.
    Keep it up!

    1. It’s nice that the Ds have staked their political futures on socialism and not giving a foreign government taxpayer money fast enough and/or investigating large amounts of money being kicked back to US officials.

      Seek therapy. TRUMP has swallowed more money, illicitly, than all the others combined.

      Thankfully, his own party REFUSED to give him the 60% tax cut Trump had campaigned on, for himself! He’d have been a billionaire, paying a top income tax rate of 15%. What’s YOUR top tax rate sucker?

      1. oh, I thought Trump wasn’t a real billionaire?? That’s what I read on Vox.

        1. Oh, I thought Trump wasn’t a real billionaire?? That’s what I read on Vox.

          No, you did not, proud commie.
          You may have read that that he’s full of shit on HOW rich he is … closer to 3-4 billion than the 10 billion he claims.

          He also lies about what he got from his WEALTHY dad — $200 million. Do you know how inheritance works?

          And why did you evade the question, so cowardly?

          paying a top income tax rate of 15%. What’s YOUR top tax rate sucker?TRY to stay on topic.

  50. D (and hence Reason) priorities:
    -Keep the corruption train and foreign aid using US taxes rolling, stop investigation of corruption, and ensure the funneling of US citizens’ money (taken by force) to foreign governments at all costs. Also, fuck American voters.

    Has Reason magazine considered relocating? They don’t seem to think the US is important

    1. Has Reason magazine considered relocating? They don’t seem to think the US is important

      Have you considered psychiatric therapy?

      Keep the corruption train and foreign aid using US taxes rolling,

      This is THE most corrupt administration in a century.
      And — again here — you’re full of shit on taxes … the REAL issue is massive tax cuts with NO spending cuts. Trump has already added as much new debt as Obama did AFTER 8 years … Obama inherited the third-worst economy since WWII … but handed Trump the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President

      YOU may celebrate the worst debt EVER … starting from the strongest economy EVER …. but Reason ain’t so eagerly brainwashed.

      and ensure the funneling of US citizens’ money (taken by force)

      It’s NOT taken by force, psycho ,,, as you AGAIN show CONTEMPT for individual liberty and self-determination (consent of the governed) Too extreme for even Ayn Rand!!

      to foreign governments at all costs.

      That’s TRUMP … or …. are you crazed enough to ALSO believe that the money used to secure the Iran nuclear deal was taxpayer dollars. IT WAS THEIR OWN MONEY, WHICH HAD BEEN SEIZED BY SEVERAL COUNTRIES, NOT JUST US,

      Also, fuck American voters.(pees pants laughing) The nearly 10 MILLION who voted against him???
      Or .. that a record percentage of voters voted AGAINST his opponent … NOT for him. (lol)

      Or that a REPUBLICAN pollster (Rasmussen) found that only 44% of all voters would NOW likely vote for Trump this November … while 51% would vote for ANYONE ELSE! Check this proof while I keep laughing.

      stop investigation of corruption, and ensure the funneling of US citizens’ money (taken by force) to foreign governments at all costs. Also, fuck American voters.

      Has Reason magazine considered relocating? They don’t seem to think the US is important

      1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

        1. Too much fun PROVING you assholes full of shit.
          On top of all your infantile screeching and bullying, alt-right thug.

  51. Just want to give you a break about these kind of news. Try and play war robots pc with your friends.

  52. Where the fuck does the Constitution authorize the FedGov (regardless of which branch) to give MY TAX MONEY to any assholes in other nation-states? I don’t give a good goddamn if Trump broke some dumb ass statute that Congress invoked after it violated Article I of the Constitution as a means of covering up its own unlawful activity.

    1. Where the fuck does the Constitution authorize the FedGov (regardless of which branch) to give MY TAX MONEY to any assholes in other nation-states? Why in the fuck are you so damn stupid?

      I don’t give a good goddamn if Trump broke some dumb ass statute that Congress invoked after it violated Article I of the Constitution as a means of covering up its own unlawful activity.

      stupid crazy.
      Trump is NOT a fucking emperor. And you even less so.

  53. “…increasingly clear…”? That’s a political opinion by Leftwing bureaucrats.

    What’s clear is that Trump delivered the aid within the deadline, did not inform Ukraine of any temporary delay, and did not condition the aid on any specific action by Ukraine. Ukraine has agreed with all that.

    The leadership of the GAO has joined the FBI and CIA and congressional Democrats in trying to remove our President from office by any means necessary. TDS.

    1. What’s even more clear is that you lied about the law … and/or babble about something you never read, and are thus totally ignorant of.

      Even wackier

      The leadership of the GAO has joined the FBI and CIA and congressional Democrats in trying to remove our President from office by any means necessary. TDS.

      ANOTHER crazy conspiracy … by the same folks who swallowed the birthrism bullshit!

  54. Thanks for sharing the great Info with us…Keep it up!
    Telugu Wap Net Movies 2020 Download

  55. Why everyone is confused just join at home online job .This is really good opurtunity for home mom just join this website and Earn money by monthly check .So u cant be miss and join this site as soon as posible .
    Here what i am doo …
    ►►………►► Click For More InFo

  56. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, LISTEN TO YOURSELVES YOU LOW-LIFE PIECES OF SCUM!. You god-damn whores, selling your frigging souls to the highest bidder at the expense of the people of this country. I’d still be a brain-dead lib had I not discovered the libertarians AND a subscription to Reason magazine. Can you freaking imagine a thoughtful young person, unhappy with progressive-ism coming to this site and finding something new, something that causes them to think differently. NO FUCKING WAY.

    Reason writers and management, you are the worst sort of treasonous trash. You never believed in anything but lining your own pockets. I’m disgusted I fell for it years ago.

    1. Have you always been a raging psycho?
      Or did it begin when you voted for Trump?

  57. I’d prefer that giving money to Ukraine was illegal.

    1. So, you support the Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine .. as does our perverted President. Do you also share Trump’s “love” for China’s XI and North Korea’s Kim Un Jong — while he trashes our allies … and CAVES to China on trade?

  58. One more time, since I posted this upthread I don’t want this to get lost. —> Serious question. The billion dollars in loan guarantees that Biden withheld from Ukraine was also appropriated by congress: (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-06/house-passes-1-billion-in-loan-guarantees-to-aid-ukraine)

    Does this mean he broke the law when he threatened to withhold the money?
    Is requesting a firing of a prosecutor worth 1 Billion to the US, and if so why?
    Is it a quid pro quo that he got what he wanted?

    1. Answered in full.

      Short version. Congress approved the loan guarantee, but NOT that the guarantee has to be made with NO conditions, to one of the world’s worst credit risks. The same conditions were made by the US and EU (guarantors) and the IMF (lender)

      Firing the prosecutor was NOT the only conditions. It was the only condition Ukraine had failed to meet — Zelenski was NOT President yet. The highly corrupt Poroshenko still was.

      How corrupt was Poroshenko? Well, voters replaced him with … a COMEDIAN … who campaigned on a VERY strong and personal commitment to clean up a

      1. How corrupt was Poroshenko? Well, voters replaced him with … a COMEDIAN … who campaigned on a VERY strong and personal commitment to clean up all the corruption that had infected their federal government — like bringing decent people to power, throughout the government. A total housecleaning.

        Zelensky is delivering on his anti-corruption mandate and has just launched a criminal investigation of AMERICANS .,… NOT Biden, but Trump’s cronies, headed by Giuliani, for violating Ukraine and international law, in the treatment of our fired ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. There are already documents, from Giuliani, bragging that she was illegally surveilled and threatened. All that’s left is to learn if Giuliani actually broke international law, or was just bullshitting again,. This, if true, would bring down Trump, since Rudy was acting as Trump’s PERSONAL attorney, in all such Ukraine matters,

        Good question!

        1. “… Well, voters replaced him with … a COMEDIAN…”
          And you show up here.
          Fuck off and die, Hihn.

          1. How can you know my name. and STILL confuse me with Ukraine’s President Zelensky? Or … are you ENRAGED because I AGAIN showed Trump to be a fucking frauds … and you FAIL to rebut a word I said.

            You’re a mouthy-punk. loser, with the trash-mouth of a 16-year-old snot.

            And you lied about what I said (context)

  59. This is from legal scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz:
    1.The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.

    2.To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.

    3.Even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not — the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents.

    4.If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law.

    The odds are really good that this “opinion” was timed for the start of the senate trial and was put forth by another leftist hack Democrat, who either doesn’t know what he/she is talking about, or is being deceitful.

    1. “…The odds are really good that this “opinion” was timed for the start of the senate trial and was put forth by another leftist hack Democrat, who either doesn’t know what he/she is talking about, or is being deceitful.”

      Pretty sure the Ds are in the straw-grasping mode. They’ve been fishing this pond since November 2016, and all we’ve got is a late-library-book return, so now it’s ‘dig up ANYTHING you can find’ and hope a large pile of bullshit can be sold as having some inkling of validity in there.

    2. It’s a good thing that Alan Dershowitz has never taken the opposite stance on any of these issues, and definitely does not have any conflicts of interest related to his interactions with Donald Trump and one Jeffrey Epstein.

      1. It’s also a good thing the entire D party has never taken any sort of stand on any of this and has no conflict of interest, too.
        Right?
        Oh, and your attempt at guilt-by-innuendo regarding Epstein sort of left out the serial rapist Clinton, who had frequent-flyer privileges on the Lolita Express, as opposed to Trump who had none. I’m sure that bit of bullshit on your part was just a mistake, right?
        Fuck off and die

        1. Let me know if and when Bill Clinton joins the team in Congress to argue for why Trump needs to be removed, and I’ll gladly point out his conflict of interests, too. Democrats would be idiots to let him anywhere near this, but Republicans actually ARE idiots to let Alan Dershowitz be a part of Trump’s defense team.

          But good to see by your last statement that you are super rational and not at all threatened or easily triggered.

    3. Derschowitz is a known Trump lackey, which is why he IGNORED the core issue. Legitimate “foreign policy” does not include bribing a foreign government to … THIS IS FUCKING CRAZY …. “announce” a criminal investigation, which is all Trump needs for one of his psycho tweet storms and TV ads.

      The cocksucker SHITS on a key moral value, “innocent until PROVEN guilty.” That’s as fucking psycho as the “hoax” he blames Democrats for
      No surprise, since BOTH party leaderships are shoving bullshit at their shrinking base … because NEITHER has ANY solutions, for ANYTHING..
      Left – Right = Zero

  60. The media are just so lazy and it’s sad to see Reason jump into the dumpster fire without a fair explanation of the law they accuse the President of violating or even trying to understand it. Every president in recent history violated it and, while that’s no defense, it’s important to note the law has a prescribed resolution for any violation. I know the whole “Whataboutism” argument is pretty popular, but consider the astonishing way the Democrats and the media are trying to hang Trump for the same crap they’ve ignored for years under other presidents, especially Clinton and Obama. The assumed “line item veto” arguments, made and acted on by every president since Nixon, are specifically the “crime” Trump is now accused of committing. https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/terence-p-jeffrey/gao-obama-white-house-violated-law-engagements-china

    The 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, which GAO cites in its letter, details the timelines under which the president may ask to rescind an appropriation or (by default) the time in which he may delay such funding (aka impound).

    At this point, the Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office (GAO) becomes the enforcer under this law. He has twenty-five days to A) Announce to Congress the failure to spend the appropriation and B) file a civil suit against the OMB with the DC District Court compelling it to spend the money as intended.
    It is almost a foregone conclusion a court would order a release of the funds. This is the statutory resolution process on this matter. As with other statutes that prescribe penalties or remedies, no other remedies are necessary. It is, therefore, absolutely ridiculous to even consider this “crime” an impeachable offense. In fact, the penalty is actually levied against OMB rather than president, so it would technically be very difficult to legally pin down the president using this law. Moreover, there is no prison time, no additional action for Congress to undertake, just a court ordering the OMB to fulfill its obligation and spend the money.
    https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2018/07/president-proposes-congress-disposes-but-does-the-budget-still-work-that-way/

    Also, in this case, the money was appropriated after several continuing resolutions, meaning that instead of having time to see legislative drafts with proposed appropriations and then plan to spend this money, OMB was instead pressed into a corner with only a few months prep time. The original law never considered these sort of abbreviated timelines to spend the money and it’s a legitimate to argue the executive branch should also have more time to get the money out as Congress intended.

    More confusing is OMB made several announcements stating its intent to hold-up the money. The administration argues this fulfills the “special notice” requirement. Since the law is so poorly written, presidents will likely continue to test the boundaries of this law, until Congress rewrites it and restores its funding authority.

    I’ve seen conflicting reports suggesting the money was spent on-time and those saying it missed the deadline. I’ll defer to GAO on this one. However, it is important to point-out that the Comptroller General never took this case to court, as prescribed under the law he is basing his claims upon.

    It’s disingenuous to suggest (as in the article above) a conflict with a president’s policy is insufficient to delay spending an appropriation. Rather, it is true that if the president fails to follow the process and ask Congress for a delay or recission of the funding, a delay for any reason is a violation. Though, historically, nobody’s really cared up until now.

    The bottom line is this law is a mess. It does, however, have a built-in resolution process. In turn, going beyond the law’s prescribed process to enforce the law, is completely absurd. Beyond that, to consider using this as a pretext for impeachment is insane.

  61. Just want to highlight that, as stated above, the legal process is filed in civil court. Congress wrote this provision into the law and it is therefore a civil, rather than a criminal matter. That is, if Congress wanted a criminal prosecution they should’ve prescribed a criminal legal process.

    1. The criminal matter is conspiring to cause a foreign government to interfere in our elections, as both he and Don Jr did in 2016.

      The broken law here just adds to the lengthy list of Trump’s character defects. So, since GAO did not call for criminal prosecution, your comment is essentially irrelevant.

      1. The point is Peolsi, Schiff, and Nadler are all trying to add the impoundment as a action rising to an actual criminal charge, in other words violating a statute. Of course, only dropping this “bombshell” after they submitted their charges to the Senate. Even if it technically violates the statute it’s something that’s been done repeatedly since 1974 and ignored, until now. It’s all just an effort to get as much mileage in the media, from an otherwise BS allegation and one that already has a prescribed resolution process, far short of anything criminal.

        1. The point is Peolsi, Schiff, and Nadler are all trying to add the impoundment as a action rising to an actual criminal charge,

          Impeachment does not require a statutory crime. Common knowledge.

        2. Even if it technically violates the statute it’s something that’s been done repeatedly since 1974 and ignored, until now.

          You seem to have memorized all the wackiest lies. When was it ever done to bribe a foreign leader to interfere in our election. Part of THIS bullshit is that Trump was merely pursing corruption, a rather blatant lie because the only demand was to ANNOUNCE an investigation. Trump did not give a shit if an investigation actually happened. Why not?

          Umm, the announcement is all he needs for a series of TV ads and nasty tweetstorms, to convince his immensely gullible base. Self-evident?

          You ignored the FACT of Trump asking Russia to find Hillary’s emails, in 2016. The DNC’s 140 servers were hacked within 24 hours. Coincidence? 🙂

      2. Seems like Mueller would disagree with you: “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” –Mueller Report, Vol. I

        1. Has no relevance to what I said. The evidence is undeniable that Don Jr. knowingly conspired with the Russian government, to gain dirt against Hillary, because the Russian government wanted Trump to win.

          I guess you missed the many news reports on this, at the time. The proof is summarized here, with a link to the original source,
          https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8092775

          investigation did not establish that…

          That just means could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Dems are blowing this with nit-picking. Fifteen minutes of undeniable proof that Trump lied, blatantly, to defend his neo-nazi and white nationalist supporters for the violent assaults they initiated in Charlottesville. He claimed the “alt-left” charged and attacked his supporters, swinging clubs. Fifteen minutes to view two videos of undeniable proof ,… and read that four white nationalists were convicted and imprisoned for initiating assaults in riots at Charlottesville and elsewhere — described as “serial rioters” — convictions won by Trump’s own DOJ!

          When the jurors voted to convict, they essentially found Trump guilty of obstruction and abuse of power …. by nazis and racists, which will scare the shit out of Senate Republicans, as Nixon did decades ago.

          You seem unaware of the five related criminal charges handed to the SDNY by Mueller …. which then disappeared???? I’m guessing they will resurface closer to the election, when it’s too late to replace Trump as the nominee.

          Also on timing, and also described elsewhere on this page, the solid Charlottesville proof will be submitted to national media and House impeachment committees, when the timing seems most opportune.

          Trump’s impeachment has a LOT to play out, that you are likely unaware of. Like dozens of times that Trump promoted his original tax cut proposal — including a 60% tax cut for himself , and just a few others like him in the 1% … which he said was a tax increase for himself! This will mostly destroy any “benefit of doubt” on how vastly he has enriched himself from his Presidency.

          However he leaves office, he will likely be handcuffed and arrested on his way to the car. Don’t be too smug on this issue,

          Lesson learned. We must now amend the Constitution, if needed, to allow a sitting President to be indicted — which is the conclusion in one of the three DOJ opinions.

          ALL the undeniable Charlottesville evidence is also described elsewhere, on this page, with links to all three original sources. As I said, 15 minutes. (Requires a separate comment for a second link. See Part Two.

          (This is as shallow and uniformed as several other of your comments here.)

          Anything else?

          1. Part Two

            This links to descriptions and original sources, all three absolute proofs that Trump disgraced himself and the Presidency, to exonerate his neo-nazi and white supremacist supporters … a clear abuse of power.

            https://reason.com/2020/01/16/by-withholding-funds-to-ukraine-trump-broke-the-law/#comment-8092277

            Jared and Ivanka are both Jewish. I assume they have not seen
            the undeniable video proof.

            Not yet, anyhow.

  62. Are you urgently in need of a loan, Business Loan,
    Personal Loan, Investment Loan, Home Loan, Car Loan and
    much more. We offer small, medium and large loans, same
    day approval, with a short and long-term guarantee at a
    rate of 5% per annum. Interested persons should contact
    for further information and applications via WhatsApp:
    +27638779328 Email Us: Mikemorrisfinancegroup@gmail.com
    Best Regards Mrs.Lucy Caver

  63. Libeterian my ass. TDSATERIAN. Obama was found to have broke the same law by the same agency which has no authority to bring criminal charges as it is a bunch of bureaucrats.

Please to post comments