GAO decision, withholding Ukraine aid was illegal

[itsbob]

Policy reasons as a whole!

Reading the ****ing report!

But they don't quote or say what Policy Reason Trump claimed or used to do it??

AGAIN, but slower.. G.......A...... O.. I.....S...N...O...T ..... P....A.....R....T... O......F.... T.....H.......E.....J...U...D...I.....C...I....A...L.... B....R..A..N..C....H....

 

[Barabbas]

Yet, the GAO says the law was violated.

Right. They said the law was violated by withholding the funding for reasons not covered by the law as accepted reasoning for withholding the funding.
The flaw I personally find with that conclusion is that the funding was required to be obligated by 30 September, and it was.
Their reasoning is very sound if the funding was not obligated until after 30 September. Even if the funding was obligated on 1 October, they seem on point.

 

[Barabbas]

It’s not ‘could have’ its ‘should have’. From what GAO says all of the delays were illegal. It doesn’t matter if it got expended prior to sept 30.

I get that same conclusion from the report.
What seems missing is the legally required due date that was violated making their conclusion indisputable.

 

[nutz]

Policy reasons as a whole!

Reading the ****ing report!

Why dont you connect the missing points when asked? The GAO reports to Congress and is run by a registered democrat and the report appears to have been requested by another democrat. Another orangemanbad scenario.

 

[Ken King]

GAO saying the law was violated means, well NOTHING.

For instance ... https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665390.pdf

 

[itsbob]

What happened when Obama broke the law, according to the GAO??

The GAO Decision that Trump 'Broke the Law' Is Meaningless and Here's Proof

www.redstate.com

 

[Midnightrider]

I get that same conclusion from the report.
What seems missing is the legally required due date that was violated making their conclusion indisputable.

The decision says the due date was the day the DOD said so. That date was violated numerous times. It’s right there in the report. The delay is one issue. Had the funding never been delivered it would have been another.

 

[PsyOps]

The GAO is the governments internal auditors, not some msm outlet. They did the investigation and they found the law was broken. this is not some partisan ‘nothing’ story I am jumping on. It is a finding of illegal activity w.r.t withholding Ukraine funding, period.

What court do you think this would play out in?

What in the hell does any of what you posted have to do with what I posted? I mentioned nothing about the MSM. I mentioned nothing about partisanship on the part of the GAO (except for yours).

When someone breaks the law, what is the next thing that happens? Charges are filed and it goes to court. In the case of the president, I suppose the house could take up another impeachment process; which I wouldn't be surprised if they did. An agency cannot execute punishment for someone breaking the law. So, all of this is moot, unless someone files charges against Trump.

You used to be smarter than this.

 

[CPUSA]

I get that same conclusion from the report.
What seems missing is the legally required due date that was violated making their conclusion indisputable.

Welcome back, Sadpussi
New identity...Same stupid thought process...
While TRYING to look impartial

 

[CPUSA]

What in the hell does any of what you posted have to do with what I posted? I mentioned nothing about the MSM. I mentioned nothing about partisanship on the part of the GAO (except for yours).

When someone breaks the law, what is the next thing that happens? Charges are filed and it goes to court. In the case of the president, I suppose the house could take up another impeachment process; which I wouldn't be surprised if they did. An agency cannot execute punishment for someone breaking the law. So, all of this is moot, unless someone files charges against Trump.

You used to be smarter than this.

No, he never was...he was just more elegant with his deceit...

 

[Kyle]

Sappys on here under more than just one name.

I've spotted three that he's outed himself with so far.

 

[CPUSA]

Um, yes.

Policy reasons as a whole are not permitted.

Did you ignore the quoted portions?

Now, if we could get the SPLC to agree with the GAO's findings...

then we would would have 2 phony watchdog groups saying so!!!

 

[PsyOps]

No, he never was...he was just more elegant with his deceit...

I was just returning the punch he threw at me. Poking fun at MR is................... fun.

 

[Barabbas]

The decision says the due date was the day the DOD said so. That date was violated numerous times. It’s right there in the report. The delay is one issue. Had the funding never been delivered it would have been another.

Right, the report says, "our opinion is..."

What does the law say that the due date is?

 

[Midnightrider]

Right, the report says, "our opinion is..."

What does the law say that the due date is?

Its their legal opinion, if you want to call it an opinion.

having said that, I already explained what the law says, it says the funds should be delivered when the DOD says it’s appropriate. That date had passed several times over.

What in the hell does any of what you posted have to do with what I posted? I mentioned nothing about the MSM. I mentioned nothing about partisanship on the part of the GAO (except for yours).

When someone breaks the law, what is the next thing that happens? Charges are filed and it goes to court. In the case of the president, I suppose the house could take up another impeachment process; which I wouldn't be surprised if they did. An agency cannot execute punishment for someone breaking the law. So, all of this is moot, unless someone files charges against Trump.

You used to be smarter than this.

You went on a stupid rant about how this proves I am a never trumper who will grasp onto any story to make my case. This is the GAO, If they aren’t partisan then their report is a nonpartisan finding by the governments internal watchdog. How can you continue to ignore it and make excuses?

I know that your last remains brain cell is inundated with orange cool aid, but trump was impeached for this Already. His trial is starting in the senate right now. The charges have already been filed and delivered to Mitch and company.

 

[Barabbas]

Its their legal opinion, if you want to call it an opinion.

SCOTUS "decisions" are actually just opinions, too. I agree.

having said that, I already explained what the law says, it says the funds should be delivered when the DOD says it’s appropriate. That date had passed several times over.

Can you help me out and show me where in the law, or in the opinion, it says that? I can't seem to find anything but 30 September.

 

[PsyOps]

You went on a stupid rant about how this proves I am a never trumper who will grasp onto any story to make my case. This is the GAO, If they aren’t partisan then their report is a nonpartisan finding by the governments internal watchdog. How can you continue to ignore it and make excuses?

I know that your last remains brain cell is inundated with orange cool aid, but trump was impeached for this Already. His trial is starting in the senate right now. The charges have already been filed and delivered to Mitch and company.

Lighten up Francis.

I didn't suggest is was a partisan decision. It very-well could be opinion based rather than rooted in actual law. All I'm saying is that if Trump broke the law, in order for this to go anywhere is for charges (either in a courtroom or in congress) to be brought up and go through the legal process. Regardless of who the person is, and their standing, they still have the right to due process; and the GAO coming out with this accusation doesn't mean a thing until it's gone through the process - something you have stated over and over again, on other issues, should play out before we jump to "He's guilty! Toss him out".

The only Cool Aid I drink is jazz music.

 

[Clem72]

Right. They said the law was violated by withholding the funding for reasons not covered by the law as accepted reasoning for withholding the funding.
The flaw I personally find with that conclusion is that the funding was required to be obligated by 30 September, and it was.
Their reasoning is very sound if the funding was not obligated until after 30 September. Even if the funding was obligated on 1 October, they seem on point.

This sounds to me like it may be two different "due dates" that have been conflated in the reports. The date they promised the funding, and the date the money expires (which would almost certainly be tied to a fiscal year, IE Sept 30). But we may never know since those details aren't provided.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

But they don't quote or say what Policy Reason Trump claimed or used to do it??

AGAIN, but slower.. G.......A...... O.. I.....S...N...O...T ..... P....A.....R....T... O......F.... T.....H.......E.....J...U...D...I.....C...I....A...L.... B....R..A..N..C....H....

Even slower,

No
One
Argued
That
They
Were.

No
One.

You're shifting the argument because you don't want to argue the merits that Trump broke the law. It's clearly spelled out, but you go ahead and argue with yourself.

 

[Gilligan]

You're shifting the argument because you don't want to argue the merits that Trump broke the law. It's clearly spelled out, but you go ahead and argue with yourself.