This comparison has become a popular talking point among the president’s supporters. Trump tweeted on this, as did Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, who tweeted a list of countries where the Obama White House withheld aid, including Pakistan, Honduras, Mexico, as well as Egypt. But Sekulow’s comparison with Egypt is off the mark in several ways.
While past administrations have delayed aid, the circumstances and the nuts-and-bolts process, including keeping Congress in the loop, bear no similarities to the Ukraine affair. In particular, with Ukraine, Congress had pushed to send the aid. With Egypt, they were pushing to have it held back.
So the question here isn't whether all of the circumstances regarding the delivery of aid can be checked off as "exactly the same"... the question quite frankly is whether or not it had been done before and whether or not there was previously any "requirement" to inform Congress of a delay.
Sekulow was not making a direct comparison regarding the reasoning, because every situation was different. Sekulow was pointing out that we have multiple examples of aid being "delayed" for a variety of reasons, that the only deadline is an end of the fiscal year (when the aid would expire), and that there was no law or legal obligation to "inform Congress".
In none of the previous examples of "delayed" aid (and Egypt was only one of the examples Sekulow provided) was the sitting President ever attacked, accused of anything, much less impeached over the delay. More to the point, where Egypt and Ukraine bore strong resemblance was in the timing. In both cases the Administration was bumping up against the end of a fiscal year, and in both situations the aid was ultimately sent before the end of the fiscal year.
I hate to keep harping on this, but the law and the Constitution provides the executive branch the authority to set terms and conditions on the aid. Congress has the authority to appropriate the aid, but no authority to lord over the executive branch on what happens next. It's one thing if Congress wants to overstep those constitutional (and legal boundaries). It's quite another when they want to "impeach" a President because he didn't do something he is not required to do by law.
Bottom line: Sekulow stated that there was previous times where aid had been delayed (and ultimately provided) and that there was no law or legal requirement for Congress to be "informed" of the delay. Politifact actually acknowledge that this is entirely true (because it is). But then, in typical Politifact fashion drones on for several paragraphs of straw man argument to declare that the point is actually "mostly false" because they have found irrelevant to the main point "differences" between the situations. Go figure?
11 comments:
I confused Dystopian Denny when I Expressed I am in favor of Witnesses that include The Bidens..
Let this US Democrat express his view.
"MSNBC’s Willie Geist then asked Manchin if he thinks Hunter Biden should be a witness.
“You know, I think so,” Manchin replied. “I really do. I don’t have a problem there because this is why we are where we are. Now, I think that he could clear himself of what I know and what I’ve heard, but being afraid to put anybody that might have pertinent information is wrong no matter if you’re a Democrat or Republican — and not go home and say, ‘Well, I protected one …’ No, if it’s relevant, it should be there.”
EARLIER GOP Senators were saying,
Why weren't you Democrats willing to drag out the proceedings while first hand witnesses fought your subpoenas by litigation?
NOW they are saying,
We don't want to drag out the proceeding by calling a first hand witness who says he is willing to come and testify.
_________
75% of the public want witnesses.
Eric Ciaramella, the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, was a guest of Vice President Joe Biden at a glitzy lunch in October 2016"
Call him too
We don't want to drag out the proceeding by calling a first hand witness who says he is willing to come and testify.
There are about six people left watching this...
Everyone knows Trump is going to be acquitted...
What's the "real" point in dragging it out?
If there were important witnesses that should have been called, that was the job of the prosecutors (in this case the House Managers) to have called them.
As pointed out, the House Managers have called dozens of witnesses and the President has only gotten a couple for his side. You didn't seem to have any troubles with the House limiting the President's defense? Why do you seem to have an issue today?
Sounds hypocritical?
What's the "real" point in dragging it out?
I agree, the guy in the yellow tie is awfully boring.
You didn't seem to have any troubles with the House limiting the President's defense?
Oh I did. I think the President, since he is so innocent, should not have refused to allow the requested witnesses to appear to defend him.
It is ok Jane, your team is winning.
US House bi-partisan voted not to start Impeachment.
US House Bi-partisan voted against the Two non-crime Impeachment .
US Senate Will in yet another Bi-partisan vote to flush this Schiff.
Trump popularity and poll numbers keep going up since impeachment. Seems like media morebupsey than dems.
Oh I did. I think the President, since he is so innocent, should not have refused to allow the requested witnesses to appear to defend him.
As far as I know, he said Hunter and Joe Biden were good to go.
Lie
"“First of all, I don’t know who the whistleblower is, I haven’t met them or communicated with them in any way,” Schiff claimed during the Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday"
But why lie?
Post a Comment