Biden impeachment over Israel aid cutoff...

[seer]

I don't see how Biden can stop aid approved by congress and signed him?

House GOP drafting Biden impeachment articles over Israel aid cutoff threat

'The House has no choice but to impeach President ‘Quid pro Joe’ Biden,' says Rep Cory Mills

FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., is preparing impeachment articles against President Biden over his threat to halt U.S. offensive aid to Israel, the first-term lawmaker told Fox News Digital on Thursday.

Mills accused Biden of forcing Israel into a "quid pro quo" situation by leveraging U.S. dollars against the Israeli government's actions in Gaza, drawing parallels to Democrats' first impeachment of former President Trump over his handling of Ukraine aid.

"The House has no choice but to impeach President ‘Quid pro Joe’ Biden. As Vice President, Biden was caught threatening to withhold funding and aid to Ukraine unless they fired the attorney general investigating Burisma, a company financially benefiting his son Hunter, not to mention the 10% share for 'the big guy' himself," Mills said in a statement.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hou...-cutoff-threat

[seanD]

Especially considering it's more than obvious he's doing this to appease the leftist pro-Palestinian crowd, thus doing it for re-election purposes. It's much more obvious here he's doing it for that reason than when the Dems accused Trump of doing it for that reason.

[CivilDiscourse]

Selling out his country for personal gain...@sam might say

[seer]

Selling out his country for personal gain...@sam might say

But Sam won't say it about this - Biden gets a free pass...

[Sam]

I don't see how Biden can stop aid approved by congress and signed him?

The president is restricted, by law, from providing military aid to countries under a number of scenarios, even if such aid has previously been appropriated by Congress. The Leahy Act, in particular, directs that aid be restricted to military units when those units have been found to commit gross violations of human rights. Other laws likewise condition when aid must be withheld.

Should the Biden administration determine that humanitarian aid is being prohibited or thwarted — as it is in Gaza — or that military units receiving US arms have committed "gross" human rights violations (they have), then it is statutorily compelled to withhold aid. House Republicans would have a better argument for impeachment were they to argue that Biden has violated US law by continuing to supply US weapons to Israeli forces for as long as he has.

Apart from that, presidents have wide discretion on when and how to deliver appropriated aid. The entire reason that then-President Trump even could use the provision of Javelin missiles to Ukraine as leverage for Zelensky announcing an investigation into Biden is because, even though the weapons transfer had been approved by Congress, he could delay or effectively cancel that appropriation. And y'all weren't arguing then (or now) that it would have been illegal for him to have done so.

Should Biden continue to delay military aid to Israel, he will have both strong precedent and black-letter law to support that decision.

-Sam

[Sam]

Selling out his country for personal gain...@sam might say

I'll say it again that contrarianism without principle isn't any good. In fact, it just ends up looking plain silly.

-Sam

[rogue06]

Selling out his country for personal gain...@sam might say

Obviously, in some yet unknown way, this just must, Must, MUST be OMB's fault

[Ronson]

Well, the precedent has been set. It actually started with Republicans chasing Bill Clinton over his infidelities, but Democrats have made it into an art recently.

So, full speed ahead! Impeach every president from now on! Multiple times, if Congress has the energy. Lawfare gone wild

[Stoic]

The rule established when Trump was obstructing the Mueller investigation should apply to Biden just as well:

If he does it in broad daylight, it can't be a crime, impeachable or otherwise.

[Ronson]

The rule established when Trump was obstructing the Mueller investigation should apply to Biden just as well:

If he does it in broad daylight, it can't be a crime, impeachable or otherwise.

Honestly, I'm glad he did it. Any time a president can stop the massive bleeding of US tax dollars, via cash or weaponry, I say "good." Israel already has been getting American tax dollars every year since the Camp David Accords, $3 billion+ every year since 1979(?) Basically extortion money (Egypt getting $1 billion+) payment that these two play nice together.

Enough already.

[eider]

I don't see how Biden can stop aid approved by congress and signed him?

He probably doesn't agree with the vrazed leaders of other countries who seem to be determined to deliberately kill civilians and their children.
Would you lend a gun to your neighbour so that he could go killing?

[seer]

The president is restricted, by law, from providing military aid to countries under a number of scenarios, even if such aid has previously been appropriated by Congress. The Leahy Act, in particular, directs that aid be restricted to military units when those units have been found to commit gross violations of human rights. Other laws likewise condition when aid must be withheld.

Should the Biden administration determine that humanitarian aid is being prohibited or thwarted — as it is in Gaza — or that military units receiving US arms have committed "gross" human rights violations (they have), then it is statutorily compelled to withhold aid. House Republicans would have a better argument for impeachment were they to argue that Biden has violated US law by continuing to supply US weapons to Israeli forces for as long as he has.

Apart from that, presidents have wide discretion on when and how to deliver appropriated aid. The entire reason that then-President Trump even could use the provision of Javelin missiles to Ukraine as leverage for Zelensky announcing an investigation into Biden is because, even though the weapons transfer had been approved by Congress, he could delay or effectively cancel that appropriation. And y'all weren't arguing then (or now) that it would have been illegal for him to have done so.

Should Biden continue to delay military aid to Israel, he will have both strong precedent and black-letter law to support that decision.

-Sam

Except he is only doing this for political reasons, he had no problem pouring in weapons when Israel was leveling northern Gaza. But now that his base and Muslim populations in swing states are losing their minds he acts. Whether this is an impeachable offense or not it is a naked political ploy on Biden's part. Never mind the fact that Israel has enough ordnance in stock to finish the job.

[Starlight]

The president is restricted, by law, from providing military aid to countries under a number of scenarios, even if such aid has previously been appropriated by Congress. The Leahy Act, in particular, directs that aid be restricted to military units when those units have been found to commit gross violations of human rights. Other laws likewise condition when aid must be withheld.

Should the Biden administration determine that humanitarian aid is being prohibited or thwarted — as it is in Gaza — or that military units receiving US arms have committed "gross" human rights violations (they have), then it is statutorily compelled to withhold aid. House Republicans would have a better argument for impeachment were they to argue that Biden has violated US law by continuing to supply US weapons to Israeli forces for as long as he has.

I would definitely support impeachment of Biden on the grounds that his administration failed to withhold aid when these US laws legally required them to do so. His administration went to great lengths to actively ignore those laws, and illegally send aid to Israel even when they were aware those laws were being violated. I would also support his impeachment on the grounds that he has aided and abetted genocide.

As usual, Republicans live in upside down land, and so want to impeach him on the opposite reasons.

[seer]

As usual, Republicans live in upside down land, and so want to impeach him on the opposite reasons.

No, we just know who the good guys are, and they are not human rights hating Islamic radicals.

[Sparko]

Personally I think it is stupid.

The President should be able to hold other countries to account if they will be using US money/weapons, especially for war. Even if Congress approved it. How is that any different than using his veto power? I don't agree with Biden in this case, but I don't see it as an impeachable offense.

In fact by impeaching Biden "for the same thing they tried to impeach Trump for" means 1> They are admitting what Trump did was wrong and he should have been impeached for it and 2> That they are more interested in their own "quid quo pro" (read: "revenge") than anything else.

If what Trump did was not wrong, then they can't claim what Biden did was wrong.