GAO Says OMB Violated Impoundment Act in Withholding Funds

[Boosted87]

Does this change anything? I don't think it does - but for those of you who argue that Trump needed to break some law in order to justify impeachment - does this change anything for you?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...e-law-by-freezing-ukraine-aid-gao-says-099682

Maybe if you're on the fence this moves the needle a little but otherwise I don't think it should. Administrations lose court battles all the time which means they were technically breaking the law. Ultimately, with abuse of power, intent is what really matters not technical violations of the law.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Yawn

 

[Crazyhole]

I said from the start that this is what impeachment should have been about. Congress has sole authority on spending and they've deferred to the president for far too long.

 

[Boosted87]

I said from the start that this is what impeachment should have been about. Congress has sole authority on spending and they've deferred to the president for far too long.

I disagree. If the administration was technically in violation of the impoundment act for a month or two, that's worth a hand slap in a vacuum. If an administration did it repeatedly, over and over, after a GAO opinion and harshly worded letters from Congress, then maybe it starts to rise to that level. You don't impeach a POTUS because they effectively lost an argument in court and were therefore violating the law for a time, which is how I'd view this

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

OMB, yes. White House, yes. But don't distract from the source.

Trump broke the law.

 

[Sir Galahad]

OMB, yes. White House, yes. But don't distract from the source.

Trump broke the law.

Interesting, neither of the two articles of impeachment show a law being broken.

 

[UCFWayne]

still holding on to that ukraine thing huh? im sure this is the thing that will finally bring trump down...

 

[Crazyhole]

I disagree. If the administration was technically in violation of the impoundment act for a month or two, that's worth a hand slap in a vacuum. If an administration did it repeatedly, over and over, after a GAO opinion and harshly worded letters from Congress, then maybe it starts to rise to that level. You don't impeach a POTUS because they effectively lost an argument in court and were therefore violating the law for a time, which is how I'd view this

Your approach is exactly why the executive branch has grown out of control. They let this kind of thing go for far too long. If they actually cared about constitutional authority things never would have gotten this far.

 

[goodknightfl]

Yawn

This,^
My understanding was the funds by law had to be released by Sept 31, and they were released before that date. I rather doubt this was any different than what often happens. The Deep state has their panties in a wad, and are squirming in every way possible to free themselves of the Trump wad that is irritating them.

 

[Boosted87]

This,^
My understanding was the funds by law had to be released by Sept 31, and they were released before that date. I rather doubt this was any different than what often happens. The Deep state has their panties in a wad, and are squirming in every way possible to free themselves of the Trump wad that is irritating them.

You're understanding is lacking context. The money had to be physically paid out by Sept 31st. You have several hundred million dollars that needs to be disbursed to a series of different places. The aid money covered all sort of different supplies and equipment. There is a human staff that has to physically do all the work, sign all of the contracts, jump through all the bureaucratic hoops, and ultimately disburse the money. There was only so much prep work they could do while the hold was in place.

Emails from FOIA show the communication between the Pentagon and OMB, and Pentagon officials informing OMB that as of a certain date (several weeks before the aid was released), they could no longer guarantee that all the funds could be disbursed in time. Concerns over the Impoundment Act were made by the Pentagon but the hold continued.

In the end, something like $30 million could not be committed in time due to the hold and required re-authorization by congress.

 

[sk8knight]

If we're going to remove a President every time something like this happens, we are going to go through a lot of Presidents. Maybe that's the right thing to do, but man, the more bureaucracy we have, the more things like this become commonplace.

 

[NinjaKnight]

This,^
My understanding was the funds by law had to be released by Sept 31, and they were released before that date. I rather doubt this was any different than what often happens. The Deep state has their panties in a wad, and are squirming in every way possible to free themselves of the Trump wad that is irritating them.

You might be dumber than biden

 

[Boosted87]

If we're going to remove a President every time something like this happens, we are going to go through a lot of Presidents. Maybe that's the right thing to do, but man, the more bureaucracy we have, the more things like this become commonplace.

I agree completely which is why I think the argument of "what laws were broken" is a poor one when it comes to impeachment. Violate the Impoundment Control Act for 45 days? Fine Congress gets to have a few hearings and write some stern letters.

Use congressionally appropriated funds as leverage to extort a foreign leader into acts that benefit your personal political aspirations? Precisely the kind of abuses impeachment is designed for, regardless of whether you technically violated the impoundment control act or not.

 

[UCFWayne]

I agree completely which is why I think the argument of "what laws were broken" is a poor one when it comes to impeachment. Violate the Impoundment Control Act for 45 days? Fine Congress gets to have a few hearings and write some stern letters.

Use congressionally appropriated funds as leverage to extort a foreign leader into acts that benefit your personal political aspirations? Precisely the kind of abuses impeachment is designed for, regardless of whether you technically violated the impoundment control act or not.

i get the feeling you wouldnt care about this stuff if the president had a (d) next to his name.

 

[UCFBS]

Does this change anything? I don't think it does - but for those of you who argue that Trump needed to break some law in order to justify impeachment - does this change anything for you?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...e-law-by-freezing-ukraine-aid-gao-says-099682
Maybe if you're on the fence this moves the needle a little but otherwise I don't think it should. Administrations lose court battles all the time which means they were technically breaking the law. Ultimately, with abuse of power, intent is what really matters not technical violations of the law.

Only a Progressive that doesn't understand the ICA would say such.

First, it's non-criminal. That's why it doesn't 'stick' very well. Otherwise Obama would have been in serious trouble (follows).

Second, the ICA has been thrown around by many in the US GAO over the last few decades. Every administration has felt the charge from several. But even more so ...

Lastly, they don't understand where the ICA comes from either. HINT: Nixon refused to let Congress over-spend. Or the abuses of the ICC and countless other acts, clauses and things. But Obama shredded the Constitution until the SCOTUS unanimously smacked him back to reality, and the ACA became the greatest, Constitutional nightmare of his administration.

As an American Libertarian who wants to reign in the power of the President, I'm all for the ICA being aimed at the Trump administration by the GAO. But when's the last time a Democratic President has listened to the GAO either?

So yes, the US GAO exposed the Obama administration on everything, from the ACA mismangaement and failure to implement Congressional law -- another ICA violation -- to even charging North Korean / Russian 'appeasement' on missile defense and the resulting cost and waste (let alone put us 7 years behind) in violation of Congressional laws over 20 years -- not quite a ICA violation, although some claim that was treason (I think that's inflammatory).

So I'm 100% for this. Impeach Trump. Impeach any President going forward that goes against Congressional law. I'm all for reigning Presidential power. Each Executive gets more powerful.

If the US GAO gets to define bad Presidents, I'm all for it! The problem is ... Trump's just one of them.

i get the feeling you wouldnt care about this stuff if the president had a (d) next to his name.

That's the supermajority of Democratic voters.

I was all over the ICA and ICC during the Obama administration. They didn't give a flying f---. Now they suddenly care.

That's how Progressivism works in the US. And even non-Trump voters like myself call them out on it.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Do we have proof that Trump did this?

 

[UCFBS]

Do we have proof that Trump did this?

I assume you're joking. The US GAO totally stated Trump's OMB violated the ICA. But he's hardly the first. It's also non-criminal.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Withholding aid = ILLEGAL!! IMPEACH!!

Obama running 2,000 firearms illegally to one, single Mexican cartel that were used in scores or murders on both sides of the border = LOL NO BIGGIE

 

[UCFBS]

Withholding aid = ILLEGAL!! IMPEACH!!
Obama running 2,000 firearms illegally to one, single Mexican cartel that were used in scores or murders on both sides of the border = LOL NO BIGGIE

Even better with a Democratic Congresswoman held up a gun that was purchased under the program over the protests of the gun store. The US gov't coercing an American citizen to sell a firearm to showcase illegal activities so an American right can be undermined.

As I said ... people other than Conservatives are watching, and not approving. Heck, 3 ATF agents 'Whistleblew' and were retributed against. It took Congress for the full story to come out. That's just scary.

Cover-ups, hiding, no disclosures ... trying to undermine a civil right.

 

[Boosted87]

i get the feeling you wouldnt care about this stuff if the president had a (d) next to his name.

See this is the problem. You live life through a partisan lens and you think everyone else does to. I voted against Obama for Republicans in both elections. If this same scandal was going on with Obama you bet-your-ass I'd be analyzing it precisely the same way. It's just that you'd be on my side in that case and agreeing with my takes. That's the only difference.

 

[Boosted87]

Only a Progressive that doesn't understand the ICA would say such.

Only a libertarian who makes assumptions about the beliefs of others could possibly such such.

Did I do that right?

How on earth you take such a simple opinion - that a single violation of the ICA doesn't move the needle on impeachment - and come up with the statement above is mind blowing. Here's a secret - philosophically i'm more libertarian than anything else. Reality drives me to check my Utopian fantasies and seek pragmatic and practical solutions based on data and evidence.

 

[UCFWayne]

See this is the problem. You live life through a partisan lens and you think everyone else does to. I voted against Obama for Republicans in both elections. If this same scandal was going on with Obama you bet-your-ass I'd be analyzing it precisely the same way. It's just that you'd be on my side in that case and agreeing with my takes. That's the only difference.

biden is on video bragging about doing this exact same thing, but for a hell of a lot more money. its safe to say that obama likely did this himself of the course of his 8 years.

you claim this is a problem for trump. why have you not been on the gops side asking for an investigation into biden. by many polls out there, he is the leading candidate to be the next potus. why are you not calling for an investigation? oh thats right, its (d)ifferent this time. dont feed me that you arent partisian bs.

 

[Boosted87]

biden is on video bragging about doing this exact same thing, but for a hell of a lot more money. its safe to say that obama likely did this himself of the course of his 8 years.

you claim this is a problem for trump. why have you not been on the gops side asking for an investigation into biden. by many polls out there, he is the leading candidate to be the next potus. why are you not calling for an investigation? oh thats right, its (d)ifferent this time. dont feed me that you arent partisian bs.

I'm not free from bias - I'm human. But I'm not a partisan. If I could magically pick one person currently in public service to become POTUS tomorrow - you know who I'd pick? Ben Sasse. Why? Because we desperately need a competent, credible, empathetic individual who writes books like this as POTUS.

I also have no sympathy for Biden. This whole mess is because of Hunter's poor decision making. I don't even fault Trump for using Hunter's situation in Ukraine to his political advantage. But there's a HUGE difference in making it a campaign issue at rallies and actually utilizing the unique powers of the Presidency to extract a political advantage - at the expense of a US citizen - that literally no other human on earth would be in a position to gain. If you think the Biden situation deserves investigation, why hasn't Barr touched it? Why hasn't the Senate held hearings?

Here's one that will blow your mind. If Trump were removed, I'd be A-OK with Pence issuing him a pardon like Nixon got. Why? Because the democrat base will be desperate to see him convicted and thrown in jail for something. Guilty or not, there's no way that investigation - presumably lead under a brand new Democrat Administration - could ever be seen as fair and non-partisan.

Impeachments are supposed to be partisan affairs. Criminal investigations are not.

 

[Crazyhole]

I'm not free from bias - I'm human. But I'm not a partisan. If I could magically pick one person currently in public service to become POTUS tomorrow - you know who I'd pick? Ben Sasse. Why? Because we desperately need a competent, credible, empathetic individual who writes books like this as POTUS.

I also have no sympathy for Biden. This whole mess is because of Hunter's poor decision making. I don't even fault Trump for using Hunter's situation in Ukraine to his political advantage. But there's a HUGE difference in making it a campaign issue at rallies and actually utilizing the unique powers of the Presidency to extract a political advantage - at the expense of a US citizen - that literally no other human on earth would be in a position to gain. If you think the Biden situation deserves investigation, why hasn't Barr touched it? Why hasn't the Senate held hearings?

Here's one that will blow your mind. If Trump were removed, I'd be A-OK with Pence issuing him a pardon like Nixon got. Why? Because the democrat base will be desperate to see him convicted and thrown in jail for something. Guilty or not, there's no way that investigation - presumably lead under a brand new Democrat Administration - could ever be seen as fair and non-partisan.

Impeachments are supposed to be partisan affairs. Criminal investigations are not.

Impeachment is absolutely not supposed to be a partisan affair. It's supposed to be a method of checks and balances to use against usurpation of constitutional authority. If a judge or president steps outside the bounds of their given authority, impeachment is a method of reigning them in.

 

[Boosted87]

Impeachment is absolutely not supposed to be a partisan affair. It's supposed to be a method of checks and balances to use against usurpation of constitutional authority. If a judge or president steps outside the bounds of their given authority, impeachment is a method of reigning them in.

You're right! I should have said political in that context, not partisan. I stand corrected.

 

[UCFWayne]

I'm not free from bias - I'm human. But I'm not a partisan. If I could magically pick one person currently in public service to become POTUS tomorrow - you know who I'd pick? Ben Sasse. Why? Because we desperately need a competent, credible, empathetic individual who writes books like this as POTUS.

I also have no sympathy for Biden. This whole mess is because of Hunter's poor decision making. I don't even fault Trump for using Hunter's situation in Ukraine to his political advantage. But there's a HUGE difference in making it a campaign issue at rallies and actually utilizing the unique powers of the Presidency to extract a political advantage - at the expense of a US citizen - that literally no other human on earth would be in a position to gain. If you think the Biden situation deserves investigation, why hasn't Barr touched it? Why hasn't the Senate held hearings?

Here's one that will blow your mind. If Trump were removed, I'd be A-OK with Pence issuing him a pardon like Nixon got. Why? Because the democrat base will be desperate to see him convicted and thrown in jail for something. Guilty or not, there's no way that investigation - presumably lead under a brand new Democrat Administration - could ever be seen as fair and non-partisan.

Impeachments are supposed to be partisan affairs. Criminal investigations are not.

i never thought the biden thing deserved an investigation. if it were me, i would never give countries aid money. the only exception would be for natural diasters, and even then im a fan of giving supplies vs cash. i honestly dont care if we tie aid money to qpq type stuff. if we are giving countries money outside of natural disaster type things, we should absolutely be getting something in return. and likely thats been the case for 100 years.

that is until trump was elected. now everything he does is bad even if virtually every potus before him did the same thing. especially when alot of the things they are going after him for was done to a larger extent under obama. lets be real, even a usf grad understands that $1 billion aid deal should carry more weight than a $400 million deal. but when trumps involved throw logic out the window.

but if they want to investigate trump, they need to look at biden because every poll ive seen has him the leading dnc candidate as well as winning the next election. so hed better get an investigation too. also i hope the cia/fbi are watching him unconstitutionally right now.

 

[UCFBS]

Here's a secret - philosophically i'm more libertarian than anything else.

Then stop reguritating from the Progressive left 85%+ of the time.

I know the left says I must watch Fox News, and the right says I must watch MSNBC. But I've watched both in a lot of airports over the years, and I'm so far from either.

I virtually never sound like them! But so many here do! You're using the same, 3rd grader level arguments.

Yes, Trump violated the ICA, the US GAO said as much! But so did Obama on the ACA. The ICA has been repeatedly violated over the years, for many weeks, and then ... the administration, under the 'threat' of the US GAO, 'backs down.'

It's been going on since Ford, after it was passed in 1974 to stop Presidents from preventing appropriations and expenditure approved by Congress. But the fact is ... Trump eventually released the funds, no different than all the other, alleged or proven, ICA violators in the Oval Office.

The funny thing here is, and it's no different than with the Russian hack and leak of the Podesta e-mails ...

The Democrats argue with Trump coercing the Ukraine on investigating the Bidens, not the merit of whether or not the Bidens should be investigated, and the various pressures exerted by various parties in various nations.

Just like the Democrats argue with the leak of the e-mails, not their content, and now the greater reason why Podesta (a registered, paid foreign agent by, of and for Moscow, in the Ukraine) had his e-mail account hacked by the Russians.

And we won't even go back into the FISA courts, let alone that also affects establishment Republicans as well.

So, again ...

Everyone can talk about 'how we got here.' But the reality, that doesn't change the hypocrisy of the left. There are many of us who will never vote Trump, but there is absolutely no standing on the left to replace him.

That's why I love the 'cookie jar' cartoon of Trump 'discovering' others. Yes, Trump was going into the 'cookie jar' too, but others were already there.

This whole Ukranian-Russian situation is just a joke, at least when people think Trump is the primary, American politician involved. And most Americans know that.

 

[UCFBS]

I voted against Obama for Republicans in both elections. If this same scandal was going on with Obama you bet-your-ass I'd be analyzing it precisely the same way.

But we did not find out that Obama had tapped all US Media phones in 2009 until 2013 ... after his 2012 re-election! That's the crap that scares the dickens out of me! And Tapper, at ABC in 2009, was the only person defending Rosen, at Fox News, in 2009.

In this case, we're 'splitting hairs' over how Trump approached the Ukraine on Biden, who is hardly innocent! If politicians want to 'partisan f'over' each other, that's one thing, wrong or right.

But when the POTUS does that to the US?

Not one media personality defended what the Obama administration did in 2009, once they found out in 2013. But in 2009? Oh, different story! Same with throwing a reporter in jail during the W. administration, but a Democratic-led committee. That's why Democrats started scaring me more by 2006, and definitely by 2013, then the Republicans.

I get pissed when Trump says things about the US Media. But Trump banning Acosta of CNN is still nothing compared to what Obama did, and justified, against not just Rosen of Fox News ... but all media! And it remained hidden for 4 years! If something comes out about Trump doing something to the US Media, I'm all ears.

But until then ... this has all been partisan, and Trump is definitely getting it from the 'establishment' as much as he 'dishes it out.' If anything, Trump is like Nixon -- and Hillary Clinton too (like Nixon) -- in that he's becoming 'paranoid,' and involving his lawyers and other parties. So ... I am watching Trump on that front. But it doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Oh, BTW, Fox News -- as an entire news organization -- did defend Acosta of CNN against the Trump administration. Interesting ...