There’s a bureaucratically complex but perfectly legal way for the administration of Pres. Joe Biden to send to Ukraine the thing Ukrainian brigades need most. Shells.
The law caps annual transfers of so-called “excess defense articles” at a total value of $500 million a year. But the same law doesn’t dictate how much value the president assigns to a particular weapon. He in theory could price an item at zero dollars.
And another president (guess who?) could in theory do the same thing to provide the same thing to Russia, which is probably why he hasn’t done it.
If Biden does it now, the conservative SCOTUS would likely rule against him, as they are wont to do. That would actually be beneficial in stopping a future potential president from doing the same for Russia.
And another president (guess who?) could in theory do the same thing to provide the same thing to Russia, which is probably why he hasn’t done it.
The hypothetical person will do it whether Joe does it first or not.
Hypothetical, huh?
What would stop “another president” from doing it anyway, regardless of what Biden did or didn’t do?
Precedent.
That’s not exactly bound Trump in the past.
It’s certainly made it harder for him to get the courts to side with him though.
Removed by mod
I would hope there would be rather excessive backlash from all of our institutions if Trump decided to give artillery ammo to Russia.
“I would hope there would be rather excessive backlash from all of our institutions if Trump decided to…”
That sums up Trump every day since the GOP decided they were fine with him.
If Biden does it now, the conservative SCOTUS would likely rule against him, as they are wont to do. That would actually be beneficial in stopping a future potential president from doing the same for Russia.
Nah, a future president would give the weapons to Russia and the SCOTUS would rule “it’s totally different this time somehow.”