The Return of the Mulvaney Defense?

[Covfefe]

@DougBH

And I have been asking what the penalties are under the subject statute. I get no response, probably because there are not penalties for noncompliance.

So…your argument is that even if its “illegal”, its not a real crime and there are no penalties. And that would mean that any president can do the same anytime they want. Or what do you think the consequence should be?

[Covfefe]

Not gonna get a response from @dougbh here I guess?

What would your consequence be for illegally withholding congressionally approved military money?

You know- so future presidents don’t do that in the future…

[komobu]

@Munimula1

No. The other candidate got 3 mil more votes.

But the will of the voter did win out. Winning by the number of votes is not our system. If it was, only California and New York would matter.

[WorldWatcher]

@coolidge

“A core group of rank-and-file Democrats has hungered for new leadership, saying it’s time for a new generation to take the helm. They tired of the Republican attack ads featuring Pelosi that are constantly run against them back home, and they worried she would be a drag on efforts to keep the majority in the next election. They enlisted some of the newcomers from the freshmen class to their ranks to try to stop her from regaining the gavel.”
Pelosi wins speaker job, will lead House Democrats again

There Democrats who did not favor her.

In the next paragraph it notes that Peolsi got voted in by 220 vote to 192 for McCarth (R).

That’s like saying that the 14% of Republican’s that can’t stand Trump (of which I’m one), so therefore Republican’s don’t favor Trump.

Doesn’t make sense. Even I realize that Trump holds the majority support within my party.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

[H_Arendt]

@komobu

@Munimula1

No. The other candidate got 3 mil more votes.

But the will of the voter did win out. Winning by the number of votes is not our system. If it was, only California and New York would matter.

The system wasn’t designed to express the will of the voters. It was designed to protect the interests of a small number of wealthy land holders, many of whom owned slaves. Two hundred years of expanding the franchise has made this rather antiquated by allowing rural states to have power far in excess of their population.

The system delivered the victory to Trump… that’s how the system works. But let’s not pretend that Trump won a popular mandate.

[Smyrna]

Ambassador Sondland said, " I don’t want anything. No quid pro quo…just do the right thing".

[komobu]

@H_Arendt

The system delivered the victory to Trump… that’s how the system works. But let’s not pretend that Trump won a popular mandate.

Why pretend anything?

Trump won.

Hillary lost.

Get over it.

Try again in November.

[Covfefe]

@Smyrna

Ambassador Sondland said, " I don’t want anything. No quid pro quo…just do the right thing".

Except there is no record of that call ever happening…

[H_Arendt]

@komobu

@H_Arendt

The system delivered the victory to Trump… that’s how the system works. But let’s not pretend that Trump won a popular mandate.

Why pretend anything?

Trump won.

Hillary lost.

Get over it.

Try again in November.

Of course Trump won. I got over it years ago.

However, mandates do matter and Trump did not get one, which is why has been unable to accomplish much of anything except through Executive Orders.

George W. Bush won his second election but he failed to build a mandate for his policy goals such as immigration reform and that cost him dearly. Didn’t mean he didn’t win; just that he was an ineffective President.

[NebraskaFootball]

@Covfefe

@Smyrna

Ambassador Sondland said, " I don’t want anything. No quid pro quo…just do the right thing".

Except there is no record of that call ever happening…

Exactly. AND Ambassador Sondland said…

“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”

Furthermore, the claim that Trump* allegedly told him no QPQ, was only AFTER all of the abuses of power were revealed by the Whistleblower and the Trump* administration was notified of it. Of course this is what Trump* would say after he was already caught. It is an absurd defense.

*3rd Impeached President of the United States

[Smyrna]

@Covfefe

Except there is no record of that call ever happening…

You have first hand testimony…given…under oath. Bam…it’s over.

[WorldWatcher]

@Smyrna

Ambassador Sondland said, " I don’t want anything. No quid pro quo…just do the right thing".

August 12th Whistleblower complaint filed.

August 26th ICIG forwards compleint to Director of National Intelligence

Trump was informed of the complaint in August.

On September 9th ICIG informs Congress of quid pro quo complaint after DNI didn’t forward to Congress, story breaks in the news and on the SAME DAY Trump says “I didn’t…”
…
.
.
Gee, Trump said something after he’d been caught - color me surprised.
.
.
.
. WW, PHS

[DougBH]

@sikofit

@DougBH

You have not and will not be able to point to where the GAO said Trump committed a crime. All you have done is point to where they said he didn’t comply with a statute. Somehow, you think the two are synonymous.

Wrong. The GAO concluded the ICA(federal law) was violated. No matter how badly you want to deny it the fact remains that violating a federal law is a crime.

No it isn’t. Violating a criminal code is a crime. If I try to write a will but do not comply with the statute for writing wills, the will may fail but I have not committed a crime.

[DougBH]

@Smyrna

@Covfefe

Except there is no record of that call ever happening…

You have first hand testimony…given…under oath. Bam…it’s over.

Yeah, but they don’t trust Sondlan the way they trust Parnas.

[Covfefe]

@DougBH

No it isn’t. Violating a criminal code is a crime. If I try to write a will but do not comply with the statute for writing wills, the will may fail but I have not committed a crime.

What do you think the consequence for violating the rules here should be? Really really interested in your answer.

[sikofit]

@DougBH

Violating a criminal code is a crime

So is violating a federal law which is what the ICA is; a federal law

[DougBH]

@Covfefe

@DougBH

No it isn’t. Violating a criminal code is a crime. If I try to write a will but do not comply with the statute for writing wills, the will may fail but I have not committed a crime.

What do you think the consequence for violating the rules here should be? Really really interested in your answer.

I have no opinion right now. Laws don’t necessarily mean punishing people. If Pelosi wants to add that in an impeachment, she can do so. That seems rather extreme for delaying a payment couple of months that all came through in the end, anyway. Perhaps a nasty letter would suffice. If indeed he did not comply with the law. GAO is just one opinion.

[sikofit]

@DougBH

GAO is just one opinion

The official conclusion of the investigating (non-partisan) body

[Smyrna]

@NebraskaFootball

3rd Impeached President of the United States

Did you get a pen too…Maxine did?

[DougBH]

@sikofit

@DougBH

Violating a criminal code is a crime

So is violating a federal law which is what the ICA is; a federal law

It appears not to be a criminal statute, no. I have not read it, but no one has been able to say what the penalty for noncompliance is. You can’t indict if there is no penalty, so probably not a criminal statute.