* Comptroller Susana Mendoza writing in the Tribune about impeachment past and present…
Trump held up your tax dollars, which Congress had authorized on a bipartisan basis to help Ukraine fight their war against the Russians, until Ukraine’s president would do Trump a campaign “favor” by publicly announcing an investigation of Trump’s campaign rival Joe Biden and his son. That’s extortion — as clear and simple as it was with Blagojevich holding up money for doctors at a children’s hospital. Or you could call it “abuse of power,” as it’s described in the articles of impeachment.
Illinois’ entire Republican congressional delegation signed a letter to President Trump in 2018 spelling out the “abuse of power,” “extortion” and “quid pro quo” Blagojevich committed as governor that they said warranted impeachment. They begged him not to pardon Blagojevich because they felt so strongly about not looking the other way from public corruption. They were right to write that letter.
Surely they could not hold their heads up now in public and argue that Democratic abuse of power is impeachable but that Republican abuse of power is … well, what everybody does?
Congressmen and senators, all that evidence and testimony you have already heard is before you now as articles of impeachment.
* From the GOP delegation’s letter to the president…
We believe that it is important to outline why facts from the case of former Gov. Blagojevich show a much larger problem and underlying pattern of public corruption. During his tenure in the governor’s office, Rod Blagojevich participated in several pay-to-play practices in which he attempted to solicit money in exchange for official public acts. Two examples include withholding $8 to $10 million in reimbursement money from Children’s Memorial Hospital until they agreed to contribute over $50,000 to his campaign and withholding the signing of a piece of legislation beneficial to race tracks until one of the race track owners agreed to a $100,000 campaign contribution.
Bottom line is he withheld government action in exchange for a campaign favor on at least two occasions.
Before you comment, take a very deep and calming breath. Keep the back-and-forth to a minimum. Say what you gotta say and move along.
- efudd - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:40 am:
I really like Mendoza.
- Alfred - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:41 am:
Mendoza is right for the most part. But where is she speaking up on Chicago corruption? After all she is the State of Illinois’ Comptroller.
- twowaystreet - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:42 am:
It’s no “profiles in courage” type of action, but I agree with what she said.
- 32nd warder - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:42 am:
I love that she did this, but i don’t think anything will convince the republicans that their president is unfit for office. They are trading immediate gratification (filling judgeships) for long term damage to their party and brand. History will not judge well those who are supporting trump.
- 32nd warder - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:44 am:
Alfred, I’m almost there with you. Once charges are announced in the ongoing investigation into corruption in Chicago/Illinois, I hope she speaks up. She did the right thing when it came to Blagojevich though, so precedent is on her side. Give her the benefit of the doubt here. she has earned it.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:45 am:
Sadly, there will be no profiles in courage from the IL GOP Congressional delegation. Quite the reverse, they are all in on the lies and conspiracy theories. Thankfully, we do have courageous Democratic Members of Congress willing to put country ahead of party.
- SpfdNewb - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:46 am:
Mendoza is right. About Chicago corruption? She is the state comptroller, not the attorney general. All she is required to do is make sure $ spent is accurate and went to where it was supposed to go to. Wrong office/wrong set of duties.
- Alfred - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:48 am:
—32nd Warder–
That is very true, no charges have been announced in the current investigation and it would actually be silly to speak out on it now. With that being said, I really do hope she calls out Madigan. We can’t actually expect to address the problem without naming the main culprit.
- Alfred - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:49 am:
– SpfdNewb —
I said she is the IL Comptroller because she should be focusing on IL. It is more applicable and relevant for her to comment on IL Corruption rather than US House investigation.
- JoanP - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:50 am:
Excellent judo move on Mendoza’s part.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:51 am:
Was thinking about this for a while. This should be pointed out and glad it was. Democrats helped get Blago out without many if any qualms. Various people I knew who were likely Democrats/on the left couldn’t stand Blago. No matter how I feel about Blago, I wish his sentence gets commuted and he gets to go back to his family.
But with Trump it seems like a cult. A lot of people who go around dispensing morality when it comes to their opponents greatly support this president, who has ripped people off, cheated, has multiple bankruptcies, lies so much, attacks children and is so thin-skinned, etc. It really shows who they are, and history will note this.
- Lil Lebowski Urban Achiever - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:53 am:
Susana is totally disingenuous. In the third line Susana says she thought voting to impeach Blago would hurt her career. Give me a break. At the time, NOT voting to impeach our federally indicted Governor would have been bad for her political career. Susana knows that, but decided to add that throw away line into the op-ed.
Kudos to her staff for trying to find ways to keep her relevant after the Mayor’s race. But this is just another example of why it’s hard to take anything she says seriously.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:53 am:
The comptroller’s main duties include maintaining the state’s fiscal accounts, ordering payments into the treasury and issuing warrants against any funds held by the treasurer. The specific duties of the comptroller are outlined in Article V, Section 17 of the Illinois Constitution.
- Billy Sunday - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:56 am:
Where is Mendoza’s editorial piece on the Speaker? tick…tock…’no comment move along’
- Rachel - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:58 am:
I’ve always identified as a Democrat but I used to regularly vote republican in state and local elections - Topinka, Edgar, Hasara - type Republicans. But no more. This ridiculous defense of the indefensible leaves me with the conviction that Republicans care only about power at any cost. Good argument by Mendoza. Republican response is just foolish.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 10:58 am:
===Where is Mendoza’s editorial piece on the Speaker?===
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
- jmj - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:06 am:
AMEN RICH
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:07 am:
Using Republicans’ own words against them. Kudos to the comptroller.
- Steve - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:07 am:
Susana Mendoza is an experienced politician with many important political mentors. What she has to say has important implications for Republicans. When your career was greatly helped because of your close association with Alderman Ed Burke and Danny Solis: you do understand ethics.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:11 am:
And still, the whataboutism continues…
To the post,
Good on Mendoza, anyone willing to stand up and be counted, let them be heard.
- Billy Sunday - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:16 am:
Susana is a hard-working,intelligent and an ambitious politician. Yes she may come off as ‘heroic’ when impeaching then-Gov. Blagojevich and it must have been a difficult vote. But I believe it would be more courageous for her to also speak up against her mentor Ed Burke and/or the Speaker, for example, when they (as alleged) do something that may be viewed as unethical…
- MG85 - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:19 am:
Imagine if the Democratic Party of Illinois had done what Republicans are doing now for Trump during the Blago fiasco.
He would have remained as Governor and the Democratic Party would have used the levers of government to keep him from going to prison, maintaining his power, and inviting foreign governments to rig Illinois elections.
This is why this debate must be bigger than Trump (although he is the master of making everything about himself). It must be about the rule of law vs. the rule of tyrants.
Mendoza hits this right on the nose, and whether or not GOPers care to admit it, they are teaching Democrats on how to behave in the future. They are teaching them “Party before Country.” When that happens, Madison’s fear from the Federalist’s 10 will be realized and and American democracy’s demise.
- SAP - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:21 am:
how many times has she spoken up about Illinois corruption in her own party?== Well, Comptroller Mendoza did vote to impeach fellow Democrat Rod Blagojevich.
- Nagidam - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:27 am:
Without opining on whether Trump should be impeached.
Mendoza was part of the House. The House has set the standard of indictment to remove. Blagojevich was indicted and removed via impeachment. Trump has not been indicted (to date).
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:27 am:
That’s extortion — as clear and simple as it was with Blagojevich holding up money for doctors at a children’s hospital. Or you could call it “abuse of power,” as it’s described in the articles of impeachment.
Except there was zero corruption alleged at the Children’s Hospital.
Why do Burisma and Hunter Biden get exempted from investigations because Joe Biden is running for President?
Looking forward to seeing Hunter Biden testify at the impeachment trial in the well of the US Senate.
It should be easy to explain why a corrupt Ukrainian Gas company paid him 10X what a director at Exxon Mobil gets for serving on their Board of Directors, but he has zero experience in the Oil and Gas Industry.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:29 am:
I think a lot of folks are looking at this incorrectly. Why, in 2019, are we expecting Congresscritters to do what’s right legally or morally instead of doing what gives them the best chance for re-election? Republican politicians are, after all, politicians. It may not be the “right” thing, but their primary purpose in life is to get re-elected. Take Rodney Davis, for example. He knows if he votes for impeachment, he’s toast - either in the primary or in the general when R’s leave his box blank - so he’s making the calculation that more trump-supporting republicans will show up to vote next year in his district than will dems/independents. Given the dem party’s inevitable loss of young voters who don’t show up, independents who stay home because “it’s all just too exhausting” and republican support of trump at 90%, he’s probably not making a bad bet.
We would like them all to do the right thing instead of the politically expedient thing, but I think it’s long past time we stop acting bewildered that politicians are going to politician. If anyone is to blame, it’s republican voters who drank the trump kool-aid and have shown that they will retaliate against anyone who doesn’t support the guy. I suspect that if blago had a 90% approval rating among dems at the time, regardless of his crimes, Mendoza and others wouldn’t have voted to impeach him.
- Lil Lebowski Urban Achiever - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:29 am:
- SAP - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:21 am:
how many times has she spoken up about Illinois corruption in her own party?== Well, Comptroller Mendoza did vote to impeach fellow Democrat Rod Blagojevich.
And if I remember correctly, so did every Democrat other Ken Dunkin and Rod’s sister-in-law. It wasn’t a particularly difficult vote.
- SpfdNewb - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:30 am:
Alfred, my last comment on this post.
Mendoza is the comptroller. She is the chief accountant for the state. Not the chief investigator or an ethics officer. An accountant. She will not get involved in a corruption case if it does not involve public tax dollars because it is outside of her official duties.
As a citizen of the US who happens to be a statewide public official, she can call out anything involving federal government and that is her right.
People saying she needs to call out/be more courageous in public about other state officials? My reply is put the beer down and let the Governor take the lead. It is not her fight to pick.
OW,
The whataboutism is strong and I personally am sick of these juvenile arguments.
- Wensicia - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:30 am:
Ergo, Republican leaders are above the law while Democratic leaders are not, says today’s GOP.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:33 am:
===Except there was zero corruption alleged at the Children’s Hospital.===
You forgot about the track, which is no longer in existence because it, um, ponied up.
- Fixer - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:35 am:
Well said. When you have a party more concerned with making sure their guy is in the office as opposed to whether that person should be, that’s a party that no longer has the interests of the electorate in mind.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 11:43 am:
Trump has not been indicted (to date). Likely but for DOJ guidelines and no other reason. On that basis alone it can’t be the standard. Otherwise a President would never be impeached.
Setting this aside Mendoza makes a clear case that the conduct between Blagojevich and Trump is similar. If the facts warrant impeachment for one they should also do so for the other. Any other argument is simply rooted in partisanship.
- Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:06 pm:
SpfdNewb
“Wrong office/wrong set of duties.”
And before people start asking about Kwame investigating corruption, please remember every time Lisa Madigan’s people started investigating Illinois political corruption, they were asked to stand down by the Feds.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:07 pm:
Well, - Steve -, at least you’re not linking to your blog, lol.
To the post,
The realities here consist of Mendoza, a partisan elected official, who has a history of participating in an impeachment, and her belief and all to the partisans to consider their job.
Here’s the lil thing about all this whataboutism;
If you thought impeachment wasn’t hurting, you’d just answer her letter with facts, not whataboutism.
I’m still trying to read where she’s wrong to process or history, but please, go on and try to justify your angst towards either Mendoza or the process of impeachment here.
- Agree with Berwyn barry - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:07 pm:
List of Mendoza’s mentors include Ray Frias, Mike Madigan. Luis Arroyo supported her mayoral race. Marty probably did as well. It goes on and on. Fine if the comptroller doesn’t have a role in talking about corruption in her own party but she exposed herself to this criticism by bringing it up with her bashing of Trump. What does the IL Comptroller have to do a with Presidential impeachment?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:09 pm:
===What does the IL Comptroller have to do a with Presidential impeachment? ===
She’s an American citizen.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:10 pm:
=Why do Burisma and Hunter Biden get exempted from investigations because Joe Biden is running for President?=
Leave it to LP to contort himself in explaining how this is all perfectly normal.
IF there’s reason to believe that a US citizen is engaged in corrupt behavior there’s a very simple mechanism for dealing with that as the Commander in Chief. You go to the Justice Department that is the law enforcement arm of your administration. You certainly don’t go to the President of a country that you’ve called corrupt, ask them to investigate a U.S. citizen, and withhold aid when they fail to do so.
- Southfarmllama - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:20 pm:
She’s not the AG. This is purely political. She still has eyes for other jobs and probably can’t stand being comptroller. Problem is.. most people just don’t like her.
- MG85 - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:23 pm:
==Why do Burisma and Hunter Biden get exempted from investigations because Joe Biden is running for President?==
Not to be to back-and-forthy, but a couple of points on this question:
1) How do you know they are exempt from investigation. It is usually the standard that the FBI and CIA don’t admit that someone is the subject or target of an investigation. So, they very well could/are being investigated by some law enforcement agency.
2) The Senate Judiciary Committee led by Republican US Senator Lindsay Graham is currently investigating Burisma. So, the company isn’t exempt either.
3) Trump didn’t want an investigation. He certainly didn’t want norms to be followed if an investigation took place. He wanted “an announcement” by the newly elected Ukrainian President that an investigation into the Bidens would soon begin and he wanted it done on CNN for the whole world to see. Again, that would be against norms and protocols set by most law enforcement agencies. However, it’s clear that Trump believes the “butter emails” investigation into Secretary Clinton aided his victory in 2016. He’s trying to recreate those circumstances.
4) Whataboutism is lazy you should try arguing for Trump instead of against everyone else.
- the Patriot - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:28 pm:
I don’t begrudge anyone disliking the President, this one, or the last. But asking a foreign coutnerpart to investigate a crime and report to law enforcement is not the same as lining your own pockets with government work.
Abuse of power is not a high crime. Trump is not abusing power as much as abusing an incompetnent congress. (both houses and both parties).
Foreign policy is quid pro-quo by definition. You give something for something.
as for the whataboutism, you take money from a guy who has demonstrated 40 year history of demands of loyalty and votes for his support which is definitive. He has oppressed the MeToo movement better than any white man in America. I like Mendoza, but IL democrats need to clean their own house before they lash out with self righteous indignation.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:28 pm:
=== Problem is.. most people just don’t like her.===
… and yet the Raunerites couldn’t beat her… twice.
Lemme know when she’s lost the Comptroller race, she’s 2 for 2
- @misterjayem - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:33 pm:
Mendoza’s letter should be a game changer — unfortunately, it won’t matter.
Shamelessness is a political superpower.
– MrJM
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:37 pm:
===Abuse of power is not a high crime.===
Then nothing is.
You hide behind the word Patriot, but it’s clear you have no idea what it means.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:42 pm:
In her role as comptroller, I don’t see this within her scope. As a citizen and a politician, absolutely.
=Abuse of power is not a high crime.=
I love that you use the name “The Patriot”, there is no end to the jingoism.
Abuse of power is a high crime. The rest is in the transcripts errr, the memo.
- Steve Rogers - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:45 pm:
“Foreign policy is quid pro-quo by definition. You give something for something.”
Of course it is, but quid-pro-quo should be done in the national interest, not in a president’s personal or party interest.
It seems pretty simple to me.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:46 pm:
The lone good thing, for me, the only good thing, is this POTUS exposed so many people, and I learned so much about folks that I’d never know without this president.
Thank you to those telling us exactly who you are.
- filmmaker prof - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:47 pm:
Lester Holt - I don’t know if this will be enough to tip the scales against Rodney Davis, but the number of young voters from the University of Illinois who vote will break every record in 2020. Write it down.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:51 pm:
===I don’t know if this will be enough to tip the scales against Rodney Davis, but the number of young voters from the University of Illinois who vote will break every record in 2020. Write it down.===
What’s the point if it won’t tip the scales?
I’ll write it down, sure, but, ok, they break a record, don’t break a record, winners make policy, not record breakers.
There’s no glory in “winning close with a new record”
With deep respect.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:52 pm:
@Patriot
If the only motivating factor behind the impeachment inquiry was “dislike” for the President I would agree with you. But to trivialize the exercise in such a way reveals your true partisanship.
Maybe you don’t think that soliciting a foreign government to announce investigations into the family of a political rival is grounds for impeachment. I’m ok with that. But you should also be able to appreciate that some might see it differently and not simply because they “dislike” the president.
If this is all on the up and up then let the process play out. The Senate is unlikely to convict him and he can claim vindication. Time will tell if that victory is a hollow one.
- Skeptic - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:53 pm:
===Abuse of power is not a high crime.===
As Mendoza pointed out, it doesn’t have to be a crime to be impeachable.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 12:56 pm:
“An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.”
Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader
US House of Representatives
Republican - Michigan
“Questions?”
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 1:03 pm:
The criminality or whatever is considered impeachable is for the lower chamber of Congress, the House of Representatives, deems it to be, within their powers found in the constitution.
The upper chamber, the Senate, will then hold a trial, with the Chief Justice as the presiding officer, not a judge, to ensure the rules of the impeachment are followed, and then the Senate, all members will judge these charges upon the accused.
It’s called process.
Argue this letter by Mendoza is this or that, needed or not, even the charges brought forth and Mendoza’s own feelings, but the process is… what the process is… and questioning “what is impeachable”, or rationale, or motives, the quote by then Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford *is* the ball game.
Mendoza, as a citizen, can speak to this on ANY level she’d like, including her own experiences… in the process.
- Steve Rogers - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 1:08 pm:
“you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.”
“impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
Lindsay Graham, 1998.
- Captain Obvious - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 1:21 pm:
Hate to break it to you Trump haters, but the aid in question was not held up and there was never any investigation into the Bidens. The only actual threat to withhold aid was made by Joe Biden as vp, and Ukraine acceded to his demand as he himself has bragged about in speeches. So ms Mendoza is comparing apples and oranges here. Blago was an indicted and soon to convicted criminal. Trump is a victim of partisan hatred.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 1:28 pm:
===but the aid in question was not held up==
It was delayed, just like the state payment to the hospital.
- levivotedforjudy - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 1:38 pm:
I hope this gets picked up by a pundit with a national voice. This is an excellent comparison. I would love to see someone who signed on to the keep Blago locked up letter explain how these are different situations.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 1:39 pm:
=Hate to break it to you Trump haters, but the aid in question was not held up and there was never any investigation into the Bidens.=
So your argument is that Trump tried to act corruptly but FAILED? Because we know aid was delayed until news of the whistleblower reached the White House, and we know definitively that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate.
By that logic, if I try to murder someone but fail, I shouldn’t be charged with a crime?
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 1:50 pm:
== but the number of young voters from the University of Illinois who vote will break every record in 2020. Write it down.==
filmmaker, I’ll do that - but I’d seriously caution against getting your hopes up. Every election we hear that U if I students (and students everywhere else) are going to turn out in huge numbers, but it only really happened in 2008. Millennial twitter is already applying purity tests to Biden and Buttigieg, claiming they won’t support either as the nominee. If either of them are at the top of the ticket, my bet is that millennials will end up re-electing trump by staying in their dorm rooms come November 2020
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 1:52 pm:
===but it only really happened in 2008===
Did you sleep through 2018?
Students turned out in droves compared to the last midterm election, when campus turnout was only about 17 percent. City of Champaign 2, which votes at the Hillel Center on campus, saw a 75 percent turnout. Two precincts that vote at the University YMCA on Wright Street posted turnouts of 81 and 65 percent.
https://www.news-gazette.com/news/campus-voting-fixes-seen-as-a-priority-for-future-elections/article_396b1c7d-959b-5485-b136-9d7eef267004.html
- Skeptic - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 2:00 pm:
” but the aid in question was not held up” Ok, so then the ends justify the means. Got it Mr. Machiavelli.
- Skeptic - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 2:06 pm:
“but the aid in question was not held up” You do realize that it’s a crime to hold up a bank whether or not you get any money, don’t you?
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 2:20 pm:
“most people just don’t like her”
Who are “most people?” Mendoza won her statewide election last year and even got more votes than Pritzker.
Very glad to see US House Democrats in tough districts, like Lipinski, doing the courageous thing and opting to impeach Trump. It’s a huge statement for our democracy and history. It’s putting principle over political job security, something totally lacking in the GOP.
- TominChicago - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 2:21 pm:
The only reason the Ukraine aid was released was because Trump learned of the whistleblowers complaint.
- moneyinthebananastand - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 2:56 pm:
in response to various posts:
The aid in question was delayed, which was a violation of the Congressional Impoundment Act - what is this Act? Put simply, Congress has the power of the purse in our system of checks and balances - it may appropriate and spend money as it sees fit. However, Congress relies on the Executive Branch to actually dispense congressional funding - especially when that funding is foreign aid to another sovereign country. What does the ICA do?
“Put simply, if the President wants to spend less money than Congress provided for a particular purpose, he or she must first secure a law providing Congressional approval to rescind the funding in question. The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed rescission; the reasons for it; and the budgetary, economic, and programmatic effects of the rescission. Upon transmission of such special message, the President may withhold certain funding in the affected accounts for up to 45 legislative session days. If a law approving the rescission is not enacted within the 45 days, any withheld funds must be made available for obligation.” (https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-control-act-1974-what-it-why-does-it-matter)
Regarding the military aid to Ukraine, the White House did not inform or provide any explanation to Congress that the aid was being withheld. In fact, Congress was never informed about the delay until the whistleblower complaint (which was also illegally withheld from Congress) forced the President to release the funds. Also, there was no legal justification to delay the funding in the first place. (https://www.justsecurity.org/67489/trumps-hold-on-ukrainian-military-aid-was-illegal/)
- TominChicago - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 3:06 pm:
Grandson - Lupinski’s decision was not about bravery, it was about Marie Newman. IL 3 is a safe dem district where Trump only got 38% in 2016
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 3:10 pm:
I have said it before. Free Blago. IMO every vote state and federal legislators take is calculated either politically or financially. I am numb to the process. And dont care anymore.
- Occasional Quipper - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 3:36 pm:
I’m not going to get into the impeachment debate because it won’t change any minds and the question was about Mendoza’s commentary in the tribune. So I started to read the full article and found it to be disingenuous from the start. She says “I did it, and it didn’t hurt my career at all, even though at the time I thought it would.” Did she really think she was risking anything when there was obvious bipartisan disdain for Blagojevich and everyone knew the vote would be nearly unanimous? She is trying to rewrite history to make herself sound more courageous than she really was. So why should I even bother reading the rest of what she has to say?
- 17% Solution - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 4:06 pm:
So you know what people are thinking Occasional Quipper? Must come in handy in poker games.
- lost in the weeds - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 4:17 pm:
Oswego Willy at 12:46 pm
“…this POTUS exposed so many people, and I learned so much about folks that I’d never know without this president….”
yes sadly so.
- lost in the weeds - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 4:31 pm:
Mendoza is right to bring up the partisanship of the republicans in congress regarding impeachment.
The actions of the president and the former governor with respect to whether the acts are corrupt are the same in my view.
- Skeptic - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 4:38 pm:
” I am numb to the process. And dont care anymore” Many of us aren’t and do care. So there’s that.
- lost in the weeds - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 4:41 pm:
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 mentioned above, was the result of Nixon withholding appropriated funds for programs he did agree with. One program was the federal water pollution control act of 1972 funding of municipal water pollution control facilities that Nixon withheld. The case started before the Act was adopted. Nixon lost in the Supreme Court. I believe the Act did not apply but I think Nixon was found in violation of Congress’ Constitutional authority to appropriate funds.
- lost in the weeds - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 4:53 pm:
I am the chosen one (said somewhere by POTUS)
I am not going to cooperate with the investigation. (Potus lawyer to congressional oversight)
I cannot be investigated. (Potus lawyer to judges)
I am going to declare the election invalid. (first said before 2016 election by POTUS “election is rigged”
Russia if you are listening. (said by POTUS in mid 2016)
All above are alarm bells or signal code words depending on who is listening.
- lost in the weeds - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 5:01 pm:
I was wrong above regarding the impoundment case. The case of Train v. City of New York was decided on statutory not constitutional grounds per this article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_v._City_of_New_York
- lost in the weeds - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 5:08 pm:
Cynicism that everyone is corrupt and it doesn’t matter is not the action of a responsible citizen.
The authoritarian relies on the cynicism of many.
- lost in the weeds - Tuesday, Dec 17, 19 @ 5:23 pm:
On cynicism
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/notes-cynicism
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 6:24 am:
== Did she really think she was risking anything when there was obvious bipartisan disdain for Blagojevich and everyone knew the vote would be nearly unanimous?==
Sure she could have been thinking that at the time. She would have been risking losing the next election if her constituents were against impeaching Blagojevich. It wouldn’t have mattered what the other members of the GA think, they don’t vote for her.
Look at the impeachment hearing. Democrats in districts that went for Trump have a legitimate fear of getting a pink slip. It doesn’t matter that the majority of Americans (70%) think Trump commuted impeachable offenses and a slim majority (50%) think he should be impeached. It matters what the constituents of that district think. This morning Ives is going after Casten for voting for impeachment hoping to make some traction in his district.
Anyway the letter was good and it really underscores the hypocrisy of the GOP delegation.