Another straw for the camel…

It appears the Democrats were absolutely correct on Article One of the Impeachment, Abuse of Power. Mr. Trump BROKE THE LAW and abused his office.

Can’t wait to hear what the House GOP sycophants, Magic Mitch, and Lindsay the Lap Dog have to say about these findings.

25 thoughts on “Another straw for the camel…

  1. Note that the law also requires the President to assure that appropriated funds go to their intended purpose and are not diverted by corruption.

    Presidents have been caught between conflicting laws since Washington.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The GAO found the President’s actions, in this instance, to be illegal. Your attempt to say otherwise is a desperate attempt to blame the process and not the crime. You would fit right in with Collins and the other GOP yahoos who say nothing to defend Trump’s actions and only claim they don’t like the process. Sad.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. @Tabor

      Virtually all of the appropriated funds to aid Ukraine were in the form of military training, equipment and assistance to help them resist Russian aggression. Almost all to be provided by American actors and contractors. What, you think they consisted of pallets of $20 bills like George W. Bush lost in Iraq? Nope. So pretending that Trump was caught between conflicting laws and held the funds because he was worried they would be “diverted by corruption” is baseless bullshit. What a surprise!

      Liked by 3 people

  2. RE: “Note that the law also requires the President to assure that appropriated funds go to their intended purpose and are not diverted by corruption.”

    There’s that. There’s also the fact that the Articles of Impeachment don’t even address the legality of withholding the funds as a technical matter. Even if withholding the funds amounts to an infraction, it is not a basis for impeachment as the articles are written.

    This is just another example of how sloppy the House has been.


      1. Being that the investigation has not yet been done, how is it that you know the Bidens had nothing to do with it. That’s why you do investigations. There is certainly probable cause to inquire.


        1. There is also a process with which to ask for an investigation. It begins by opening an investigation here, finding evidence of corruption that leads to another country, passing the information to the said country and requesting they investigate. That is not what happened. And there is no certainty of probable cause, just conspiracies fueled by supporters, sycophants and red, tin hat wearing 400 pound idiots who think the sun rises and sets in Donald Trump’s 239 pound backside.

          Also, Trump didn’t care if an investigation was opened in Ukraine or not. He just wanted Zelenisky to ANNOUNCE (or “anonce”) one. If Trump seriously thought there was actual corruption, he could have easily ordered the DOJ to open one, find evidence, send to Ukraine and get what he pretends to want.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. President Obama delegated control over aid to Ukraine to VP Joe Biden.

            Burisma, a natural gas company, hired Hunter Biden for $83,000 for a no-show job.

            Biden demanded the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was supposed to be investigating the company, threatening withholding of billions in economic aide if he wasn’t.

            The prosecutor was fired and the aid was delivered, and promptly disappeared into the hands of corrupt oligarchs.

            It is alleged that the fired prosecutor was corrupt and wasn’t going to really investigate but he has stated that he was warned by superiors that Burisma was off limits due to its connections with the Bidens.

            He may be lying, or maybe not, but that is certainly probable cause to find out.


          2. I AGAIN(!) refer back to my previous post concerning how to request an investigation using the treaty in place.

            If what you said is the case (thin, but OK), then do the due diligence and not just call the President of Ukraine and say “I need you to do us a favor though”…


          3. If President Trump ordered the DOJ to investigate the Bidens, you would be screaming that he was using the power of government against a political rival.

            Asking another country, where the suspected corruption actually occurred provides a way to remain at arms length form the process.

            It is a better way to accomplish the same thing.


    1. @Roberts

      There are dozens of High Crimes and Misdemeanors that could have been included in the Articles of Impeachment. The fact that this one was not is NOT evidence of sloppiness. It is the result of the decision to keep the Articles simple so that maybe, just maybe, the simpletons who still support the con man Trump would not get too confused.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “There are dozens of High Crimes and Misdemeanors that could have been included in the Articles of Impeachment.”

        And the answer to the question about life, the universe, and everything could have been included, as well. But it wasn’t. So what?

        Should it choose to do so, the Senate will be fully within its rights to dismiss the impeachment case out of hand. And that will be the House Democrats’ fault.


  3. Perhaps all the left wing legal scholars might want to admit that the GAO submitted an “opinion” that has ZERO legal implications or bearing on Trump and that OMBs opinion is it completely disagrees. In fact, OMB maintains that this has been business as usual as they exercise their lawful apportionment authority and have been for as long as OMB has existed. GOA has been known to reverse course many times before.


    1. The OMB is part of the Executive Branch of government, the GAO reports to Congress. Naturally, the OMB is going to side with its boss. GAO actually holds a higher place between the two. Remember that the head of the OMB is also the ACTING COS. Naturally they are going to say all is well. Because one of the key witnesses not heard from told us all to “get over it.” Talk about conflict of interest.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Well, I dunno, guess you’re right, it’s just a lawyer’s opinion as opposed to a judge’s ruling.

      Ya know, kinda like, oh say, an opinion that a sitting President can’t be indicted, or that torture and waterboarding is okay as long as you don’t break a bone or something like that.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. It’s going to be rather easy for the GOP to brush this off.

    All they need to state is “the appropriated funds were to be dispersed during FY2019 (which ended September 30, 2019). Since they were? What law was broken?”

    I dislike President Trump, as well. But this seems more like grasping at straws.


    1. Craig, the timeline is important here. The aid was not released until AFTER Trump got caught with his hand holding the lid down on the cookie jar. The action of withholding the aid was illegal. Like a kidnapper releasing his victim before paid a ransom. Kidnapping is still a crime even though the victim was released.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Timeline? Noted.

        Illegal? I guess the question here is “does this rise to high crimes and misdemeanors”?

        When’s the last President we had that didn’t do something illegal/unconstitutional or abused his power? Just consider the number of court rulings during their respective terms.

        PS. I’m thinking we’d have to go all the way back to William Harrison to find one who didn’t.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. If you use the court rulings as a basis, I think Trump wins hands down for the most decisions overturned by the courts.

          Also, Trump tends to disregard the courts decisions and tries to find ways to “do whatever (he) wants.”


  5. The GAO’s attorneys say on thing and OMB’s say another. In any case, here are some nice little letters that the GAO sent to Mr Obama. This stuff is all civil anyway and it is irrelevant.

    Click to access 665390.pdf

    Click to access 665685.pdf

    Click to access 674163.pdf

    Click to access 388698.pdf

    Click to access 674163.pdf

    Click to access 676341.pdf

    Do you wonder why the swamp-state waited until the other day to send one to Mr Trump? (I don’t.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s