The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Apparently there was a White House review of Ukrainian records which found the Chief of staff and the OMB staff trying to figure out justification for Trump to block the aid package.........AFTER THE FACT AND AFTER AN ANONYMOUS CIA COMPLAINT!

Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and budget officials scrambled to reverse-engineer an explanation for the hold on military aid to Ukraine, according to The Washington Post, citing three people familiar with records of a White House review.

White House attorneys have expressed concern about unflattering exchanges discovered in a review of the records, although it is unclear whether they involve any potentially illegal activity. Despite this, some White House officials are concerned the publication of the emails could create political problems, according to the Post.

In early August, Mulvaney asked acting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought how much longer the aid could be legally delayed and inquired about the OMB’s progress on developing a legal rationale for the hold. Trump had made the decision in July without consulting anyone regarding its legality, according to the Post, citing two White House officials.

Vought and other OMB staffers argued for the hold’s legality in the emails with the State Department, and National Security Council officials pushed back, according to the Post, with OMB attorneys arguing it was legally justifiable as long as it was considered a “temporary” hold.

On July 25, the day of Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a senior budget attorney wrote a memo defending a limited hold, according to the Post.

The review also includes email conversations between OMB and State officials discussing potential legal issues with the White House holding up nearly $400 million in military aid, according to the Post.

Mark Sandy, the only OMB official to testify in the House’s impeachment inquiry thus far, said the aid delay was highly unusual and that he had never known a political official to assume control of an aid package in such a way, according to the Post, citing people familiar with his testimony.

The Hill has reached out to the OMB and the White House for comment.

First, the aid to Ukraine should certainly have been tied to a lessening of Burisma corruption, but wasn't.

Second, Democrats have got to stop their lunacy, and even Barry Obama said this.

There was Ukraine corruption in the form of donations from Ukraine -- and Burisma -- to the Clinton Foundation to buy influence in case Hillary won.

Out of my curiosity....why was there a cover up if there was nothing impeachable?

Doubtless because Trump is under constant attack from Left Wing outlets pretending to be "news"?

First, the aid to Ukraine should certainly have been tied to a lessening of Burisma corruption, but wasn't.

Second, Democrats have got to stop their lunacy, and even Barry Obama said this.

There was Ukraine corruption in the form of donations from Ukraine -- and Burisma -- to the Clinton Foundation to buy influence in case Hillary won.

johnforbes' actually justified Trump's cover up because media are attacking him. Just mind boggling.

Oh no! What else is a President supposed to do when he is attacked by media? Oh, the humanity! He has no choice but to obstruct justice. It's not his fault.

Criminy, conservatives have contempt for the rule of law. Like johnforbes, they demonstrate it every day

johnforbes is still upset that Nixon didn't get away with HIS coverup. After all, Nixon was being attacked by the media too. He had no choice but to break the law, did he?

Out of my curiosity....why was there a cover up if there was nothing impeachable?

What cover up? You mean because the President didn't tweet or tell Jim Acosta about it?
Look at all those witnesses they all say they knew about it …!

sillydaddy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:16 am

Out of my curiosity....why was there a cover up if there was nothing impeachable?

What cover up? You mean because the President didn't tweet or tell Jim Acosta about it?
Look at all those witnesses they all say they knew about it …!

If there was a cover up, then why is Trump hiding behind executive privilege?

So is it going to take a supreme court decision for the witnesses that Trump is blocking...for them to testify?

Elk...you say "executive privilege" as if it's a bad thing..!

Because abusing executive privilege IS a bad thing, dimwit.

Criminy, Republican stupidity knows no bounds....

Because abusing executive privilege IS a bad thing, dimwit.

Using executive privilege isn't abusing it.

"First, the aid to Ukraine should certainly have been tied to a lessening of Burisma corruption, but wasn't."-johnfibs

Yes, it was, johnny. Our military had evaluated Ukraine's efforts and had certified that adequate measures had been taken to curb corruption, thus authorizing the aid.

"Second, Democrats have got to stop their lunacy, and even Barry Obama said this."-johnflubs

Yes, and so do Republicans, johnny. Everyone with a brain says this.

"There was Ukraine corruption in the form of donations from Ukraine -- and Burisma -- to the Clinton Foundation to buy influence in case Hillary won."-johnfoibles

And there were illegal contributions to Trump by Lev and Igor, for example, but you don't care about them, do you.
Nor do you care about the millions of dollars Trump collected for veterans and pledged to veterans himself that he has failed to distribute to this day. He kept it all and used it for personal debts. But you don't care about that either. And then there is the leftover $50 million from Trump's inaugural committee that vanished. You don't care about that either.
And there are the hundreds of thousands that foreigners funnel to Trump as emoluments by staying at Trump properties at grossly inflated prices. But you don't care about that either. Trump is flaunting the law daily and you don't care about any of it.

But for some reason you're still whining about Hillary, who isn't President, by the way. If the Trump Justice Department won't go after her, then stop sniveling to us about it already. You're boring everyone.

Trump is flaunting the law daily and you don't care about any of it.

Flaunt means to work it, to preen like a peacock, but not break it, a real hero, who pushes to get shit done.

Sure Tool, to defy the law (which is to refuse to obey it, break it) is not breaking the law in your world.

ESL classes, Tool. You desperately, DESPERATELY need them.

Or perhaps you just need to learn to read. Any dictionary would tell you what you don't know about the meaning of a word.

Schiff apparently went to law school, but didn't learn much if he thinks exercising a privilege is tantamount to obstruction.

In reality, the privilege is exercised, then would go up the appellate chain, and long after some ruling would be handed down, and if it went Schiff's way and he still got no cooperation, then -- and only then -- could Schiff claim obstruction.

But, by that time, the voters would have forgotten about Schiff's charade.