Biden impeachment over Israel aid cutoff...

[Sam]

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.

Wouldn't work, even on the merits. The administration gets to make that call and has exceptionally wide latitude to do so. Like Trump repurposing military funding to Build the Wall, it's within the president's discretion.

It's Chinatown.

-Sam

[Sam]

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.

It's different from using veto power for the reason that a presidential veto isn't contravening a law. The President can withhold aid for specific reasons only because the law allows the President to do so.

-Sam

[seer]

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

Didn't the libs want to impeach Trump over the Javelin missile thing?

[Sparko]

It's different from using veto power for the reason that a presidential veto isn't contravening a law. The President can withhold aid for specific reasons only because the law allows the President to do so.

-Sam

I said "how is it any different than using his veto power" - meaning that he has the right to stop what congress approved, not that it WAS using his veto power. And I see nothing wrong with the USA putting restrictions or conditions on the money or equipment they give to foreign governments. We just did that with Iran didn't we?

[Sparko]

Didn't the libs want to impeach Trump over the Javelin missile thing?

Yep. same thing. If the GOP tries impeaching Biden for the same thing they tried to impeach Trump for, they are admitting that the Democrats were right about Trump.

It also means that if the Democrats now claim that withholding money/weapons from a foreign government by POTUS is fine (like Sam is doing) then they are admitting that Trump did no wrong.

But we still should not be impeaching Biden for what Trump also did.

[Ronson]

Yep. same thing. If the GOP tries impeaching Biden for the same thing they tried to impeach Trump for, they are admitting that the Democrats were right about Trump.

It also means that if the Democrats now claim that withholding money/weapons from a foreign government by POTUS is fine (like Sam is doing) then they are admitting that Trump did no wrong.

But we still should not be impeaching Biden for what Trump also did.

Not to mindread Sam, but I assume he will come back emphasizing intent. Presumably, Trump's intent was to gain personal advantage, where Biden's intent is to save lives. Of course, in a strictly legal sense, Congress made a decision on this and it's not the president's job to second guess Congress.

[seer]

But we still should not be impeaching Biden for what Trump also did.

OK...

[seer]

Not to mindread Sam, but I assume he will come back emphasizing intent. Presumably, Trump's intent was to gain personal advantage, where Biden's intent is to save lives. Of course, in a strictly legal sense, Congress made a decision on this and it's not the president's job to second guess Congress.

Right and Biden isn't doing this because he is losing votes...

[Ronson]

Right and Biden isn't doing this because he is losing votes...

Biden is trying to straddle the fence with his big-tent voting block. If this wasn't an election year he wouldn't have bothered intervening.

[rogue06]

It's different from using veto power for the reason that a presidential veto isn't contravening a law. The President can withhold aid for specific reasons only because the law allows the President to do so.

-Sam

Wasn't OMB impeached for supposedly withholding aid to Ukraine?

[CivilDiscourse]

Of course, in a strictly legal sense, Congress made a decision on this and it's not the president's job to second guess Congress.

Well....from a balance of power perspective.....

[Ronson]

Well....from a balance of power perspective.....

Congress made a decision and Biden approved it. Now he's changed his mind. Looks more like flip-flopping than a balance of power.

[Sparko]

Not to mindread Sam, but I assume he will come back emphasizing intent. Presumably, Trump's intent was to gain personal advantage, where Biden's intent is to save lives. Of course, in a strictly legal sense, Congress made a decision on this and it's not the president's job to second guess Congress.

Actually it is the job of the President to second guess congress and vice versa. Part of the checks and balances of the three branches of government. That's why the President can veto laws by congress and why congress can override vetos by the president.

[seanD]

Wasn't OMB impeached for supposedly withholding aid to Ukraine?

They claim it's different. They claim Trump was trying to find dirt on Biden in order to affect his re-election in his favor, whereas Biden isn't trying to affect his re-election in his favor, but doing it because he's virtuous person who cares about Palestinian lives. Of course, we know that's just pure opinion based on partisan subjective BS.

[Sam]

I said "how is it any different than using his veto power" - meaning that he has the right to stop what congress approved, not that it WAS using his veto power. And I see nothing wrong with the USA putting restrictions or conditions on the money or equipment they give to foreign governments. We just did that with Iran didn't we?

I responded: "It's different from using veto power for the reason that a presidential veto isn't contravening a law. The President can withhold aid for specific reasons only because the law allows the President to do so."

In other words, a presidential veto is a power vested to the president to prevent a bill from becoming law. Once a law is made, however, the president cannot exercise the equivalent of a veto — the time to do that is when the president signs appropriations into law. So if funds, by law, have to be appropriated for a given function, the president can't just decide not to appropriate those funds ... unless the law also has provisions for when the president can do so. In this case, the law contains those provisions.

-Sam