enki
325
But it justifies the Deep State conspiracy.
1 Like
Are you aware that corporate boards routinely name members because of the contacts those members facilitate?
Are you suggesting that Hunter Biden is the first child of privilege to take advantage of their situation or that he is in any way unique?
What harm flowed from Hunter Biden’s Burisma appointment? What US interests were compromised?
I find the obsession with an absolutely normal form of corporate governance and the faux outrage at one child of privilege taking advantage of their situation when a thousand examples exist all around us to be disingenuous at best.
Ivanka Trump has received a Chinese trademark to operate nursing homes. What expertise does she have in that area. She also received a Chinese trademark to sell pork products. Again, she has no more expertise at selling pork than Hunter Biden. Any outrage at that?
Children of privilege receive advantages. So what?
2 Likes
Oh yeah I know. When one has a vested interest in greying the crimes up this is what you get
Covfefe
328
That…is literally all they have to hang their hat on. It actually makes me want them to call Hunter. And then the Dems can bring up the countless example of cushy jobs that politician’s children often get. We can start with Trumps daughter, son-in-law and Giuliani’s aon- all who have whitehouse jobs they are not qualified for.
It’s all so laughable that Trump was “rooting out corruption.” And I’m certain that the vast majority of Trump supporters know its BS but have nowehere else to go to defend dear leader.
1 Like
sikofit
329
Well we now know why Perry announced his resignation when this first broke
1 Like
DougBH
330
I meant none of this is illegal in the sense of criminal. Obviously the GAO believed part of a statute was not complied with.
sikofit
331
Breaking the law is always illegal
DougBH
332
Not complying with laws is not always a crime, however.
Covfefe
333
Still waiting to see what you think a good consequence for this should be- you know so it doesn’t happen again.
DougBH
335
I will often answer questions that I have an interest n. I have no interest in how Congress can force compliance with some budget timing bill.
Sorry…no questions on demand.
DougBH
336
No one in authority has even claimed that.
sikofit
337
In this instance it is a crime punishable through impeachment
sikofit
341
A crime is an unlawful act punishable by a state or other authority. Trump is being punished by Congress for his unlawful act which fulfills both criteria
DougBH
342
Under that definition of a “crime” then eating a sandwich could be considered a crime since the House can impeach for anything.
No, there needs to be a criminal penalty for a statute to be a crime.
In fact, there is recourse, non criminal, if the President does not submit a letter requesting a delay in funding.
“Second, even if one were to make the case that a “special message” was due to comply with section 684 because of a deferral within the fiscal year, the appropriate course of action in the absence of such a message is for Congress to invoke section 686, not to impeach the president. Section 686 states that if the comptroller general, who is part of the legislative branch, finds “that the President has failed to transmit the special message,” he shall “make a report” and send it to Congress and that report “shall be considered a special message transmitted under section 683 or 684.” The reason why the comptroller general did not send such a report is a question for him, not for the president.”
However, that recourse does not include a penalty, therefore there is no crime for noncompliance with the law.
I can’t help your mistaken belief that noncompliance with all laws equals a crime. It does not.
sikofit
343
Eating a sandwich is not against the law, violating the ICA however is against the law
Covfefe
344
Congress approves military aid to Israel. President Sanders delays that money for months and does not give Congress a reason. You have no opinion on whether that is okay? Or legal?
Sorry man- not buying it.
DougBH
345
The bill itself provides recourse (non criminal) if the President does not comply with the law. Glad to answer all questions.
“Second, even if one were to make the case that a “special message” was due to comply with section 684 because of a deferral within the fiscal year, the appropriate course of action in the absence of such a message is for Congress to invoke section 686, not to impeach the president. Section 686 states that if the comptroller general, who is part of the legislative branch, finds “that the President has failed to transmit the special message,” he shall “make a report” and send it to Congress and that report “shall be considered a special message transmitted under section 683 or 684.” The reason why the comptroller general did not send such a report is a question for him, not for the president.”
