So, which corrupt Ukrainian Billionaire needed the money so badly??
So, which corrupt Ukrainian Billionaire needed the money so badly??
The Democrat Party.
L
Not that we could before, but now that Nanny Bloomers in in the race can we not dispense with his network?
What “legal ground” does Axios pretend is necessary to TEMPORARILY “block” aid?
So Trump couldn’t but Biden could?
Boom! And there it is. This is why government continues to grow unabated. That mindset needs to end.
Well, this ought to be easy to figure out. Had any previous President ever blocked foreign aid before?
It’s illegal to NOT spend money???
Maybe it’s time to cut funding to State Department lawyers.
The believe the GOP congress authorized military aid to Ukraine. Obama blocked it. I’m surprised nobody has mentioned that.
Sounds like the State Department thinks it has authority over the President, whom they serve.
He needs to fire the top 5 levels of the State Department immediately.
...which, by extension, also means that there was no legal ground NOT to block it.
What a stupid article.
All those kickbacks could be lost if there was further delay in giving the monies to Ukraine.
That’s what’s surfacing when you subtract the drama and BS.
And a few tweets from Paul Ryan reminding the media of that would be devastating to the “Trump blocks aid” Dem narrative. But, obviously, Ryan plays for Team Democrat.
Sheeeyit. I bet it did.
Isn’t the State Department part of the Executive branch?
This makes absolutely no sense.
1. The State department is part of the executive branch. Therefore, the powers withing the State department come from the POTUS. The POTUS is in charge of all foreign negotiations and relationships. The POTUS is in charge of the military. The POTUS negotiates all treaties. Therefore, the POTUS decision who gets military and financial assistance via the State department. Therefore, the POTUS is the FINAL say unless congress has a signed a treaty.
2. Congress cannot force the POTUS to give funds via the State Department or any other portion of the Executive branch. This would be a violation of the separation of powers as outlined within the Constitution.
Thus, saying the POTUS has no right to stop the State Department from sending funds is akin to saying the State department is no longer part of the Executive branch of government. This can’t be. If it was so.....how could Biden withhold money to stop investigation of his son’s company.
The message is simple, we no longer have a Constitutional Republic, and we the people don’t matter anymore. Trump is right, the US government is no longer by the people.
Bolton is the one who knows what is going on more than anyone....and his testimony will HELP the President. That's why he wants a real subpeona and an open hearing.
Remember this is the first time Ukraine is getting more than blankets.
That's all it takes to get State Department of panties all wadded up? Maybe it's time to abolish the State Department if it's that prone to hysteria.
Does Bloomberg believe that the State Dept has now usurped the Dept of Justice when it comes to the law?
Better question...
Which State Department personnel needed the kickback?