Shitty, but 100% unsurprising. Johnson is (amongst other things) a Trump sycophant.
The Republicans were never going to upset their paymasters by doing so.
Biden can just do it anyways right? Spend and send anything from the military and it’s impossible to prosecute him or the act as per the Supreme Court saying presidents enjoy absolute immunity?
No, but he could deploy troops for up to 60 days.
He won’t, of course, because Biden is a coward who is intent on damaging as many countries fighting authoritarian regimes as possible.
That could be a creative solution. Order troops to deploy and then order them immediately back.
“Oh, no, there’s not enough time to ship everything back. I guess you’ll have to leave your equipment behind.”
That one is not even really about timing; it’s simply cheaper to just leave the equipment there.
Let’s be clear and dispel all that stupid Joe Pesci bullshit.
The president can deploy whatever for however long they want. Bush proved it. 60 days is yesterday’s pearls to clutch and if you truly believe that rule you’re in the wrong country.
FFS if the pres violates the 60 days rule what mechanism exists to enforce it or punish the president?
If Congress decides to throw its weight around, 60 days is the limit. Not that it particularly matters, considering 60 days is more than Biden has left anyway.
No if congress decides to throw its weight around they can recommend or advocate but according to the Supreme Court there is no legal remedy. Subpoenas have even shown to be toothless these past few years…
The president is acting in their official capacity and at that point no one on earth has a legal remedy to rein that in.
Yes I ended that sentence in a preposition, I’m president go fuck yourself and try to arrest me.
No mechanism anymore.
If you can convince the military to do blatantly illegal stuff, than sure. But I wouldn’t bet (nor would I want) the military doing blatantly illegal stuff, just because it happens to be convenient this one time.
Is it blatantly illegal to ship equipment… vs say EVERYTHING trump has talked about? It’s blatantly illegal for the commander in chief to dictate military spending/logistics?
We had a handful of people stopping military deployment on US soil come Jan 6. But Ukraine/logistics getting dictated by the commander in chief is on the same level?
To be clear I’m fine with it being illegal but just want to call out we’re moving into a post law situation over the next 4 years…
It’s blatantly illegal for the commander in chief to dictate military spending/logistics?
Congress sets the parameters for how money is spent. You certainly don’t like the next president, yet you encourage presidents to blatantly ignore budget requirements from Congress? Furthermore, you encourage the military to ignore Congress and do whatever illegal stuff the president asks of them?
No, I do not want a dictator. Nor should you.
Calm down. Discretionary spending is a thing. Multiple arms shipments have already been made via executive decision and not congressional mandate.
Your description of a dictator doesn’t need to include “sends support to allies” unless you have a bone to pick.
There’s a lot more dictatorial shit coming down the pike. You can fret all you want about congress and rules over the next four years right now I don’t see the issue.
Discretionary spending is a thing. Multiple arms shipments have already been made via executive decision and not congressional mandate.
Absolutely. That is were notable portions are currently coming from. Biden gave a huge chunk of discretionary spending to Ukraine and some to Israel and some in support of Syrian rebels. This funding, critically, is also Congressionally approved and limited; it isn’t a blank check, Congress sets whatever limits they deem fit on it.
Your description of a dictator doesn’t need to include “sends support to allies” unless you have a bone to pick.
It comes from what we were talking about: something that would require, as you put it “send[ing] anything from the military and it’s impossible to prosecute him or the act as per the Supreme Court saying presidents enjoy absolute immunity?”. If you are talking about prosecutions and presidential immunity, we aren’t talking about Congressionally approved funding.
In summary, Congressionally approved funding good (this includes discretionary spending by definition). While sending military aid that would require prosecutions and presidential immunity, bad.
“Congressional funded” is a fun joke.
You’re describing things the way an imaginary person would wish how they should exist. I agree but I’ll be the first to say you’re off from reality yet you keep on that fantasy.
Things aren’t that way and there is no longer any mechanism to make them so. You aren’t wrong you’re just on a different planet. It’s not that things shouldn’t be that way, it’s the fact that there are no means to make that happen here and now. You are a part of that problem.
Also you are focusing on a narrow application of sharing arms to define a dictator. Rather than saying “supporting an ally is different from becoming a dictator” you keep conflating the two … why?
there is no longer any mechanism to make them so…it’s the fact that there are no means to make that happen
The vast majority of Ukraine aid was specifically mandated by Congress. This, for example, was $60B in April. I’m not sure what you are referring to when you say that there is ‘no means to make that happen’ when there clearly is.
If your complaint is that people voted in too many Republicans and Republicans won’t do what you or I want, I would argue that Democrats should step up their game and earn more votes next election.
AFAIK he can re-value military equipment to 1 cent and then donate it within budget… 155 shells… 1 pallet for a dollar, gmlrs rockets… a dollar per pod. Atacms, a dollar per pod…
Grandpa Joe’s end of term blow out sale!
With a GOP controlled house and senate, an impeachment might actually have teeth.
Impeachment of who? Control of congress happens after the current admin. So impeachment for what? And by whom?
I mean it’s not like trump who had 2 solid cases resulting in two impeachments. Biden did what now?
Two solid cases, but not enough votes in the senate to convict. Completely toothless.
And good for you…
What? It’s good for me that a criminal got away with trying to over turn an election? That’s not good for anybody.
And some Ukrainians thought republicans would be better for Ukraine…
That would be zero of the Ukranians I’m aware of, but that could be sampling error.
You’re talking to the smart ones.
Mine is a highly curated life experience. Building moats, and walls keeps me safe and sane. And it gives me perspective to understand the needs of others. Slava Ukrani! Also it looks like Biden won’t need Mike J, to give a $50B boost to the Ukrainian efforts. https://united24media.com/latest-news/ukraine-to-receive-50-billion-from-frozen-russian-assets-blinken-confirms-4230
Youre eating up Russian propaganda if you really believe that, just like how ukraine is full of nazi and are to blame for the war
3 of the Ukrainians I know would have voted Trump if they were allowed to vote.
Some morons thought “GeNoCiDe” means trump is better. Every Ukrainian I have ever met (many) didn’t buy that shit. But dumb asses thought republicans wouldn’t do what they’ve done for over 3 decades now. That’s not on Ukraine
In fact never heard a single Ukrainian say what you’re saying. Weird having walked on Ukrainian soil and asking them but what do I know?
Removed by mod
Hope you meant skip level above me.
Oh yeah, not yall lol
Pretty sure I typed that but Autocorrect shit the bed as per usual
Not Ukrainian people, Russians… Get it right
