That’s untrue, Congress already passed the Lehy law and arms shipments are already bound by that. Biden could have followed the law and stopped weapons shipments based on that or the other law that block aid to countries that block humanitarian aid. Instead Biden bypassed Congress to give more weapons faster, when he didn’t do that for Ukraine.
Biden’s bypass was before he mandated a pause in munitions delivery pending a State Department investigation of breach of international law. I don’t believe he was interested in stopping the supply before that. Once the investigation returned inconclusive, he was limited in his actions without repercussion. Amending existing agreements against advisement of Congress and State Department intelligence would leave him exposed to impeachment by Congress for acting in bad faith.
Now that there’s reason to believe Blinken’s report was inconclusive due to suppression of intelligence, Biden can mandate a reassessment. Directly overseeing the ceasefire will stop causality sooner, allow for aid to Gaza more quickly, and allow him to deviate from Congress and the State Department if Israel negotiates in bad faith or breaches the agreement.
No. It’s more likely Biden leaned on the State Department to bury their findings. The organization is controlled by political appointees, remember. Typically their reports are a fait accompli. And no, there’s zero talk by Republicans on impeaching Biden over Israel, so you keep repeating this idea with no backing or evidence behind it. The president has broad discretionary powers in foreign policy and can restrict aid as he sees fit, and the courts including SCOTUS have consistently ruled in favor of the presidency on the issue.
Israel is absolutely working in bad faith, and Biden is enabling it. See Biden’s red line not being breached by airstrikes and literal tanks into Rafah according to Israeli government and with Biden rushing to agree after the fact, with excuses that tanks are merely on roads or that the airstrikes are limited under a new just-made up-threshold.
I don’t need evidence to assume the President is speaking truthfully. You should be providing evidence to the contrary. Innocent until proven guilty.
Your ignorance to checks and balances is the source of your confusion. Yes, the President can absolutely amend the aid without support of Congress or justification from US intelligence. Going against the advisement of both the Legislative and Executive Branches would absolutely have him checked by the Judiciary Branch in the form of an impeachment hearing.
lol, as a political scientist that’s ridiculous and false. The Judicial Branch does not have a role in impeachment aside from Chief Justice having a role in the Senate trial. Impeachment is a political process conducted by the Legislative Branch. And impeachment “for high crimes and misdemeanors” does not include wielding his congressionally-authorized power to condition aid or hold aid when the country in question violates the Leahy Laws (which require the US to hold military aid to a country that violates human rights without accountability.
Political scientists don’t troll Lemmy for debates. I’m guessing you’re like me, and took some poli-sci classes in college. That makes you a graduate. Employment as a political science professor, researcher, author, or qualified pundit makes you a political scientist.
You’re right. The Senate holds the trial and votes on impeachment. That’s my mistake. Still, Biden does not have the support of Congress to go against the intelligence advisement of his own branch. You really think Republicans in Congress would let him amend existing contracts without any substantiated justification?
I think he needs to mandate a reassessment by the State Department while overseeing the negotiations between Israel and Hamas. Netanyahu negotiating in bad faith, or verification of war crime by intelligence, will give him a firm platform for amendment of support to Iron Dome munitions only.
That’s untrue, Congress already passed the Lehy law and arms shipments are already bound by that. Biden could have followed the law and stopped weapons shipments based on that or the other law that block aid to countries that block humanitarian aid. Instead Biden bypassed Congress to give more weapons faster, when he didn’t do that for Ukraine.
Biden’s bypass was before he mandated a pause in munitions delivery pending a State Department investigation of breach of international law. I don’t believe he was interested in stopping the supply before that. Once the investigation returned inconclusive, he was limited in his actions without repercussion. Amending existing agreements against advisement of Congress and State Department intelligence would leave him exposed to impeachment by Congress for acting in bad faith.
Now that there’s reason to believe Blinken’s report was inconclusive due to suppression of intelligence, Biden can mandate a reassessment. Directly overseeing the ceasefire will stop causality sooner, allow for aid to Gaza more quickly, and allow him to deviate from Congress and the State Department if Israel negotiates in bad faith or breaches the agreement.
No. It’s more likely Biden leaned on the State Department to bury their findings. The organization is controlled by political appointees, remember. Typically their reports are a fait accompli. And no, there’s zero talk by Republicans on impeaching Biden over Israel, so you keep repeating this idea with no backing or evidence behind it. The president has broad discretionary powers in foreign policy and can restrict aid as he sees fit, and the courts including SCOTUS have consistently ruled in favor of the presidency on the issue.
Israel is absolutely working in bad faith, and Biden is enabling it. See Biden’s red line not being breached by airstrikes and literal tanks into Rafah according to Israeli government and with Biden rushing to agree after the fact, with excuses that tanks are merely on roads or that the airstrikes are limited under a new just-made up-threshold.
I don’t need evidence to assume the President is speaking truthfully. You should be providing evidence to the contrary. Innocent until proven guilty.
Your ignorance to checks and balances is the source of your confusion. Yes, the President can absolutely amend the aid without support of Congress or justification from US intelligence. Going against the advisement of both the Legislative and Executive Branches would absolutely have him checked by the Judiciary Branch in the form of an impeachment hearing.
lol, as a political scientist that’s ridiculous and false. The Judicial Branch does not have a role in impeachment aside from Chief Justice having a role in the Senate trial. Impeachment is a political process conducted by the Legislative Branch. And impeachment “for high crimes and misdemeanors” does not include wielding his congressionally-authorized power to condition aid or hold aid when the country in question violates the Leahy Laws (which require the US to hold military aid to a country that violates human rights without accountability.
Where did you even hear such a phony claim?
Political scientists don’t troll Lemmy for debates. I’m guessing you’re like me, and took some poli-sci classes in college. That makes you a graduate. Employment as a political science professor, researcher, author, or qualified pundit makes you a political scientist.
You’re right. The Senate holds the trial and votes on impeachment. That’s my mistake. Still, Biden does not have the support of Congress to go against the intelligence advisement of his own branch. You really think Republicans in Congress would let him amend existing contracts without any substantiated justification?
I think he needs to mandate a reassessment by the State Department while overseeing the negotiations between Israel and Hamas. Netanyahu negotiating in bad faith, or verification of war crime by intelligence, will give him a firm platform for amendment of support to Iron Dome munitions only.