The Return of the Mulvaney Defense?

[sikofit]

@coolidge

There Democrats who did not favor her.

Yes, a minority did not favor. The majority of Democrats however did making her the favorite

[coolidge]

Which she was in jeopardy of doing

[DougBH]

@sikofit

@DougBH

It doesn’t reach the level of impeachment

The GAO disagrees. They say a crime was committed

Do they? I have read that they say there was noncompliance with a statute. That is not the same thing as saying that a crime was committed. Not even close.

[sikofit]

@DougBH

Do they

Yes they in fact do

[coolidge]

In doing so I would say she has something to prove. Why not hold a shampeachment to prove she is worthy of that job?

[Covfefe]

@DougBH

Second, yes. It is a reasonable argument that Trump did X but that X doesn’t reach the level of impeachment. Indeed, that was the basis for not convicting Clinton…it was perjury but perjury about sex.
It doesn’t reach the level of impeachment.

Sadly this idea has not even been suggested. I have heard of no GOP Senator saying what Trump did was wrong but does not rise to the level of impeachment. (Romney and a few other moderates have hinted at that- but not the rank and file.)

That would actually make for a better argument- but so far it is…“I see nothing.”

[Blackwolf]

These mealy mouth excuses are pathetic. You (collective) would have crucified Obama for doing the same thing, and you would have been right to do it.

But Donald? “Well ok sure dirty deeds were committed but 'twas all in good fun!”

[JayJay]

@coolidge

Which she was in jeopardy of doing

Not really. She had to cut a couple deals…one of which stated she serve no more than four years… but no one else was running against her.

[DougBH]

@sikofit

@DougBH

Do they

Yes they in fact do

Quote the part where they say a crime was committed. Does the statute make it a felony or a misdemeanor to fail to comply with that statute?
What are the penalties?
I have not read where GAO said it was a crime.

[GrandWazoo]

@DougBH

First, the “jig is up” if you are willing to trust Parnas over Zelensky.

Second, yes. It is a reasonable argument that Trump did X but that X doesn’t reach the level of impeachment. Indeed, that was the basis for not convicting Clinton…it was perjury but perjury about sex.
It doesn’t reach the level of impeachment.

Many folks keep referring to Zelensky saying that there was no pressure. What do you expect him to say? He needs our assistance and he is not about to bite the hand that feeds him. It is pretty obvious that when he delayed in making a statement he did not want to be a player in our election process. And if there was undue pressure put on him to make that statement, then what he says is moot.
And many folks seem to be focused on the article related to Ukraine and not on the article that relates to obstruction. And throughout the proceedings so far the Republicans have focused mostly on procedure. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not heard any defense for the president blocking the release of documents or of witnesses being interviewed.

[NebraskaFootball]

@DougBH

@sikofit

@DougBH

It doesn’t reach the level of impeachment

The GAO disagrees. They say a crime was committed

Do they? I have read that they say there was noncompliance with a statute. That is not the same thing as saying that a crime was committed. Not even close.

https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/1217842690995490819?s=21

The most trusted man in Washington.

[DougBH]

What do you expect Parnas to say except that which he thinks is most likely to keep him out of jail?

[DougBH]

My question was not over whether GAO believed Trump failed to comply with a law. My question was where did they say he committed a crime? There is a difference, you know?

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@GWH

I can unequivocally answer, yes. If someone else wins, I won’t go around saying “Not my president.”

Correct. You’ll just vote for the #2 birther instead of the #1

[GrandWazoo]

@DougBH

I have not read where GAO said it was a crime.

GAO says Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the opinion said. “[The Office of Management and Budget] OMB withheld funds for a policy reason … not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that the OMB violated the ICA [Impoundment Control Act].”

I would think that not execution a law is considered a crime. Don’t you think?

[sikofit]

@DougBH

@sikofit

@DougBH

Do they

Yes they in fact do

Quote the part where they say a crime was committed. Does the statute make it a felony or a misdemeanor to fail to comply with that statute?
What are the penalties?
I have not read where GAO said it was a crime.

“OMB violated the ICA”. The ICA is federal law

[DougBH]

No. There are criminal statutes. Not complying with all statues is not a crime, only criminal laws. Example: noncompliance with a zoning ordinance is not likely to be criminal.

[PurpnGold]

@DougBH

First, the “jig is up” if you are willing to trust Parnas over Zelensky.

Parnas has receipts. Trump trusted him.

[sikofit]

@DougBH

My question was not over whether GAO believed Trump failed to comply with a law. My question was where did they say he committed a crime? There is a difference, you know?

The bottom of page 8 where they make their conclusion

[DougBH]

Having receipts might prove one thing, it doesn’t prove all things he says…other than that he has some receipts.
No one doubts he worked for Guiliani.