BOOM: President can't withhold Congressional funds, period. It's illegal.

[garybeck]

It doesn't matter his reason.
it doesn't matter if there is quid pro quo.

nothing matters, because he was withholding congressional funds illegally.

I heard this law mentioned in the testimony, that after Nixon tried to withhold congressional funds they made a law preventing future presidents from doing exactly this.

So I looked it up:



https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg297.pdf#page=36

[beachbumbob]

1. As if a law matters to trump and his criminal circle?

Really? Gonna find out the hard way

[maxsolomon]

12. The question is whether the law matters to GOP Senators.

And Chief Justice Roberts.

[beachbumbob]

19. The law is not as important as being reelected. We are

on the verge of witnessing the destruction of the GOP as a political party.

[maxsolomon]

22. As the Yiddish say

Fun dayn moyl zu Got's oyem.

[beachbumbob]

23. don't know what it means but I am laughing any ways

[maxsolomon]

24. From your mouth to God's ears

which is pretty much how it sounds!

[yaesu]

18. Laws apply, they just won't be enforced as long as fascists are in charge. nt

[The Wielding Truth]

2. Especially for extortion!

[garybeck]

3. yes but the point it, it doesn't matter why he's doing it.

he was required by law to tell Congress, in writing, that he was doing it and why.

the fact that there is extortion is just beyond and makes it even worse.

[malaise]

6. Dems need to make more of this

It is what makes the case for impeachment that much more urgent.

[garybeck]

7. yup!

that's part of the reason i looked it up. i heard one of the congressmen mention it and i immediately wanted to learn about it.

[malaise]

8. Castro just raised it as well

I've seen it discussed but it needs way more coverage

[bluestarone]

25. Could be considered dereliction of duty

By the RETHUGS if they choose NOT to impeach because of these charges.

[PubliusEnigma]

5. The delay of Aid cost the Ukrainians millions

It was not all distributed before the September 30 deadline according to tonight's testimony.

[Iwasthere]

10. The delay of aid likely cost the Ukrainians soldiers lives!

[Heartstrings]

20. And possibly innocent lives as well......nt

[ck4829]

9. "If you don't like it, you should have put a veto on it"

Those are the president's options.

[garybeck]

11. well according to the law as i read it,

the can put a hold on funds if he writes a letter to congress explaining why, for how long, and how much etc.

he did nothing. even the people around him whose job it is to know these things had no idea what was going on.

[MyOwnPeace]

17. "even the people around him whose job it is to know these things had no idea what was going on."

WHAT!?!?!?!

You're telling me that "I'll hire only the best" was nothing but BULLSHIT?

[mr_lebowski]

26. Yes, we're ALL very shocked lolololol (nt)

[Wounded Bear]

13. I'm pretty sure the last aid package had a veto proof majority...

in both houses. At least that is how I recall it.

[zaj]

14. He had a deadline. He reIeased it before the deadline.

[TomSlick]

15. The problem is that the statute creates a duty without a remedy other than impeachment.

If a President - any President - blocks expenditure of appropriated funds in violation of the statute, there is no remedy other than impeachment.

[James48]

16. Not true-

This law provide a remedy- the Comptroller General can file suit in federal court to release the money.

[TomSlick]

21. Perhaps. However, that is a slender reed

If the Comptroller General could bring himself to file such a lawsuit, it could not possibly be resolved before the end of the fiscal year when the appropriation dies. In any event, by the time the lawsuit wound its way through the courts, all of Ukraine would be occupied by the Russians.

[bigbrother05]

27. Which is why Cooper put Mulvaney in the middle of it

OMB was trying to finesse the delay until it hit the news, then it was immediately released.

Congressional notification on Defense spending is generally pro forma unless you're trying to pull a fast one.

[D_Master81]

28. I'm sure

I’m sure Trump can find 5 SC justices to say that he can. Just saying