White House violated the law by freezing Ukraine aid, GAO says

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
Francee89
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 7:13 pm

Unread post

KnotaDinghy wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:55 am
Francee89 wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:45 am
KnotaDinghy wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:23 am

Blackmailed?
Yeah, that never happened.

Ukraine did meddle in the 2016 election but for HRC, not Trump.
Proof of Ukraine “meddling” in 2016 for Clinton?

Again, why is Trump simultaneously illegally withholding aid, while using his personal lawyer and phone calls to demand an investigation into his political rival acceptable to Republicans? Does that seem like appropriate behavior?
Rules of aid are to ensure compliance. I don’t see the aid delay as being illegal.
The GAO is clear on why it was illegal. What did Ukraine do to demonstrate compliance for it to be released in September? Are we to believe it was just a big coincidence the aid got suddenly released on September 11th as the White House became aware that the House Intelligence Committee was learning of a whistleblower complaint and the fact that Congress was going to start investigating on September 9th?

You didn’t answer - what’s the proof of Ukrainian meddling in 2016? Why is Trump simultaneously illegally withholding aid, while using his personal lawyer and phone calls to demand an investigation into his political rival acceptable to Republicans? Does that seem like appropriate behavior?
User avatar
KnotaDinghy
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4425
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:43 pm
Location: Philly suburbs

Unread post

Valentina327 wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:00 am
Thelma Harper wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:41 am
KnotaDinghy wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:28 am

Stop being so passive aggressive. It’s annoying as shit.


No.
Not ‘but Obama’.
It’s the truth. The GAO finds things against the law all the time and releases reports. It’s their OPINION. And when that happened there wasn’t a big stink about it and certainly NOT an Impeachment. People should be consistent.

It’s also natural to refer back to the most recent administration as most people remember that best. But we could go back further if you want. There’s many instances of hypocrisy between other Presidents treatment and how Trump is being treated.
Heck yes, it is "but Obama" and "but, but, but...they all did it". "Well, Obama did it too!" "Well, Bush did it too!" "Well, Clinton did it too!"

It's bullshit. Like this - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... deral-law/ which is probably from where your OPINION on the GAO OPINION stems.

I don't want Trump impeached - precisely because that gives us Pence, and that evangelistic nightmare doesn't ever need to be in that office.

I am again finding myself stuck in a hard place for the upcoming presidential election. No way would I vote for Sanders or Warren or Biden, and I don't think Bloomberg or Steyer even have a chance at the nomination, although I doubt I'd vote for either of them. I also wish upon a star that the Republicans would get back to the center. Reagan looks like a moderate now, smh.
They've been screeching for impeachment since Trump walked in and it gives me a chill every time. I don't know WHY anyone that's complaining so hard about Trump, claiming he's racist, claiming he's a white supremacist and whatever blatant nonsense they say, would want Pence to walk into the presidency.

You want freedoms taken away? You want abortion abolished? You want the 'mos to have to go back into hiding? You want travel bans? You want no immigrants allowed into this country? You want to keep complaining that old white men are the ones who are favored? Keep screeching for impeachment.

What the hell do they think this country of ours would look like under President Pence? Do they simply not understand what happens if Trump gets removed?
They truly are insane and believe not only will Trump be removed from office but so will Pence. Then half believe Pelosi will take the Presidency and half believe she’ll put Hillary in. Then they will cancel the 2020 election completely.

Truly insane.
“You’re either on drugs or retarded.
Nobody posts the crap you post unless they’re abnormal.” - derp
Carpy
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4199
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 5:26 am

Unread post

Valentina327 wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:00 am
Thelma Harper wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:41 am
KnotaDinghy wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:28 am

Stop being so passive aggressive. It’s annoying as shit.


No.
Not ‘but Obama’.
It’s the truth. The GAO finds things against the law all the time and releases reports. It’s their OPINION. And when that happened there wasn’t a big stink about it and certainly NOT an Impeachment. People should be consistent.

It’s also natural to refer back to the most recent administration as most people remember that best. But we could go back further if you want. There’s many instances of hypocrisy between other Presidents treatment and how Trump is being treated.
Heck yes, it is "but Obama" and "but, but, but...they all did it". "Well, Obama did it too!" "Well, Bush did it too!" "Well, Clinton did it too!"

It's bullshit. Like this - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... deral-law/ which is probably from where your OPINION on the GAO OPINION stems.

I don't want Trump impeached - precisely because that gives us Pence, and that evangelistic nightmare doesn't ever need to be in that office.

I am again finding myself stuck in a hard place for the upcoming presidential election. No way would I vote for Sanders or Warren or Biden, and I don't think Bloomberg or Steyer even have a chance at the nomination, although I doubt I'd vote for either of them. I also wish upon a star that the Republicans would get back to the center. Reagan looks like a moderate now, smh.
They've been screeching for impeachment since Trump walked in and it gives me a chill every time. I don't know WHY anyone that's complaining so hard about Trump, claiming he's racist, claiming he's a white supremacist and whatever blatant nonsense they say, would want Pence to walk into the presidency.

You want freedoms taken away? You want abortion abolished? You want the 'mos to She to go back into hiding? You want travel bans? You want no immigrants allowed into this country? You want to keep complaining that old white men are the ones who are favored? Keep screeching for impeachment.

What the hell do they think this country of ours would look like under President Pence? Do they simply not understand what happens if Trump gets removed?
That's some extreme drama.
User avatar
Valentina327
Princess
Princess
Posts: 16075
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 2:23 am

Unread post

Carpy wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:14 pm
Valentina327 wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:00 am
Thelma Harper wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:41 am

Heck yes, it is "but Obama" and "but, but, but...they all did it". "Well, Obama did it too!" "Well, Bush did it too!" "Well, Clinton did it too!"

It's bullshit. Like this - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... deral-law/ which is probably from where your OPINION on the GAO OPINION stems.

I don't want Trump impeached - precisely because that gives us Pence, and that evangelistic nightmare doesn't ever need to be in that office.

I am again finding myself stuck in a hard place for the upcoming presidential election. No way would I vote for Sanders or Warren or Biden, and I don't think Bloomberg or Steyer even have a chance at the nomination, although I doubt I'd vote for either of them. I also wish upon a star that the Republicans would get back to the center. Reagan looks like a moderate now, smh.
They've been screeching for impeachment since Trump walked in and it gives me a chill every time. I don't know WHY anyone that's complaining so hard about Trump, claiming he's racist, claiming he's a white supremacist and whatever blatant nonsense they say, would want Pence to walk into the presidency.

You want freedoms taken away? You want abortion abolished? You want the 'mos to She to go back into hiding? You want travel bans? You want no immigrants allowed into this country? You want to keep complaining that old white men are the ones who are favored? Keep screeching for impeachment.

What the hell do they think this country of ours would look like under President Pence? Do they simply not understand what happens if Trump gets removed?
That's some extreme drama.
In my opinion, everything that the left bitches about with Trump would be 10x worse under a Pence presidency. I count him as extreme right based on actions in his former post. I can't figure out why the left would want him instead of Trump.
Let's Go Brandon!
#FJB

https://openvaers.com/
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4288
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

Francee89 wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:13 am
KnotaDinghy wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:55 am
Francee89 wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:45 am

Proof of Ukraine “meddling” in 2016 for Clinton?

Again, why is Trump simultaneously illegally withholding aid, while using his personal lawyer and phone calls to demand an investigation into his political rival acceptable to Republicans? Does that seem like appropriate behavior?
Rules of aid are to ensure compliance. I don’t see the aid delay as being illegal.
The GAO is clear on why it was illegal. What did Ukraine do to demonstrate compliance for it to be released in September? Are we to believe it was just a big coincidence the aid got suddenly released on September 11th as the White House became aware that the House Intelligence Committee was learning of a whistleblower complaint and the fact that Congress was going to start investigating on September 9th?

You didn’t answer - what’s the proof of Ukrainian meddling in 2016? Why is Trump simultaneously illegally withholding aid, while using his personal lawyer and phone calls to demand an investigation into his political rival acceptable to Republicans? Does that seem like appropriate behavior?
Politico wrote an article about Ukraine apologizing, trying to make amends with Trump for trying to undermine him in the election. They admitted to meddling in our election. It was published on Jan 11, 2017.
Yet Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.
How much more explicit does it have to be? Is there a better way to word it, to make more understandable to the general public?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ ... ire-233446
Expand your thinking


It’s possible to disagree with an article and not respond with a personal attack you know.
Try it.
User avatar
KnotaDinghy
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4425
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:43 pm
Location: Philly suburbs

Unread post

29again wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:19 pm
Francee89 wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:13 am
KnotaDinghy wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:55 am

Rules of aid are to ensure compliance. I don’t see the aid delay as being illegal.
The GAO is clear on why it was illegal. What did Ukraine do to demonstrate compliance for it to be released in September? Are we to believe it was just a big coincidence the aid got suddenly released on September 11th as the White House became aware that the House Intelligence Committee was learning of a whistleblower complaint and the fact that Congress was going to start investigating on September 9th?

You didn’t answer - what’s the proof of Ukrainian meddling in 2016? Why is Trump simultaneously illegally withholding aid, while using his personal lawyer and phone calls to demand an investigation into his political rival acceptable to Republicans? Does that seem like appropriate behavior?
Politico wrote an article about Ukraine apologizing, trying to make amends with Trump for trying to undermine him in the election. They admitted to meddling in our election. It was published on Jan 11, 2017.
Yet Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.
How much more explicit does it have to be? Is there a better way to word it, to make more understandable to the general public?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ ... ire-233446
You are wasting your time. She won’t listen. Believes that’s all made up BS.
“You’re either on drugs or retarded.
Nobody posts the crap you post unless they’re abnormal.” - derp
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4288
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

KnotaDinghy wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:28 pm
29again wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:19 pm
Francee89 wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:13 am

The GAO is clear on why it was illegal. What did Ukraine do to demonstrate compliance for it to be released in September? Are we to believe it was just a big coincidence the aid got suddenly released on September 11th as the White House became aware that the House Intelligence Committee was learning of a whistleblower complaint and the fact that Congress was going to start investigating on September 9th?

You didn’t answer - what’s the proof of Ukrainian meddling in 2016? Why is Trump simultaneously illegally withholding aid, while using his personal lawyer and phone calls to demand an investigation into his political rival acceptable to Republicans? Does that seem like appropriate behavior?
Politico wrote an article about Ukraine apologizing, trying to make amends with Trump for trying to undermine him in the election. They admitted to meddling in our election. It was published on Jan 11, 2017.
Yet Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.
How much more explicit does it have to be? Is there a better way to word it, to make more understandable to the general public?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ ... ire-233446
You are wasting your time. She won’t listen. Believes that’s all made up BS.
I know. I've linked to and mentioned this article numerous times. It seems that not one democrat/liberal has read it, though. And that's why I asked if there was a better way to word it! Maybe the words are too big, too long? Or is Politico too conservative these days? IDK what the issue is, why this is so ignored.
Expand your thinking


It’s possible to disagree with an article and not respond with a personal attack you know.
Try it.
User avatar
KnotaDinghy
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4425
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:43 pm
Location: Philly suburbs

Unread post

29again wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:38 pm
KnotaDinghy wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:28 pm
29again wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:19 pm

Politico wrote an article about Ukraine apologizing, trying to make amends with Trump for trying to undermine him in the election. They admitted to meddling in our election. It was published on Jan 11, 2017.



How much more explicit does it have to be? Is there a better way to word it, to make more understandable to the general public?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ ... ire-233446
You are wasting your time. She won’t listen. Believes that’s all made up BS.
I know. I've linked to and mentioned this article numerous times. It seems that not one democrat/liberal has read it, though. And that's why I asked if there was a better way to word it! Maybe the words are too big, too long? Or is Politico too conservative these days? IDK what the issue is, why this is so ignored.
It doesn’t meet their narrative so they cannot acknowledge it.
“You’re either on drugs or retarded.
Nobody posts the crap you post unless they’re abnormal.” - derp
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4288
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

KnotaDinghy wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:41 pm
29again wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:38 pm
KnotaDinghy wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:28 pm

You are wasting your time. She won’t listen. Believes that’s all made up BS.
I know. I've linked to and mentioned this article numerous times. It seems that not one democrat/liberal has read it, though. And that's why I asked if there was a better way to word it! Maybe the words are too big, too long? Or is Politico too conservative these days? IDK what the issue is, why this is so ignored.
It doesn’t meet their narrative so they cannot acknowledge it.
Oh, is THAT how it works? If they don't like it, then they pretend it never happened... what a way to go through life!
Expand your thinking


It’s possible to disagree with an article and not respond with a personal attack you know.
Try it.
Deleted User 1461

Unread post

KnotaDinghy wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:23 am
Shoota wrote: Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:12 pm
KnotaDinghy wrote: Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:38 pm ..... and the GAO found the Obama Administration violated a couple of iFederal laws with the negotiations and swap with the terrorists to get Sgt Bergdahl returned.

No one cared about that, which I feel is far more critical than delaying an aid package to another country.
More critical than allowing a foreign government to be blackmailed into meddling our election process? 🤦‍♀️
Blackmailed?
Yeah, that never happened.

Ukraine did meddle in the 2016 election but for HRC, not Trump.
Russia and the Ukraine both worked against Hillary and FOR Trump.
Nobody wanted Hillary.
Look what happened...
Locked Previous topicNext topic