Govt watchdog says White House violated law by withholding Ukraine aid

He was impeached, and rightfully so.

With a boatload of consistent testimony and documentary evidence, and the scofflaw still obstructed the inquiry!

Obstructing an inquiry and sobbing over a "lack of evidence" that you caused (which still resulted in overwhelming evidence) means that he's got seriously unclean hands.

 

Could you elaborate on the 'proof' that's being presented?
All I have read about is "he said, she said", nothing tangible like recordings or documents with the Presidents signature.
In the meantime I will attempt to locate the other volumes.

 

I disagree with the premise of your question, OMB says the law was not broken. Why is CBO suddenly saying it was when it wasn't. Why didn't the Democrats list it in the articles of impeachment?

 

Zero evidence = Rightful.

Good reason not to vote for democrats.

 

You do not get to reject the premise. The OMB gave you an explanation for why they said the Trump administration violated the law. Read it or answer it based on your own explanation, if you'd like.

Why do you think Trump's administration is accused of breaking the law? What did they do wrong.

 

Trump has ordered all current and former employees to not hand over any documents.

 

The best reason not to vote for a party? The dumbing down of the electorate to such a degree that they accept a "presuhdint" who has willfully abused the office dozens of times.

 

Read the transcripts.

 

So I looked up the 1974 law that Trump is being accused of breaking, and it's tricky.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title2/chapter17B&edition=prelim
And here's the accusation
https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf
No wonder there are so many attorneys involved on both sides to unravel this.

 

I didn't inject the premise you did, I don't accept YOUR premise, OMB said the regulation was not violated. Why did CBO do it, go ask them the time for them to have done it was months ago.

As I have already stated

A former Member of Congress argues via email:

The opinion is not what section 686 requires. This brief statutory section mandates that GAO report on a deferral of budget authority that the president has failed to notify Congress about. The purpose of this mandate on GAO is to let Congress know in a timely way, so that Congress can do something about the withholding of funds (i.e., make sure that they are spent as required by law).

In order for this statutory provision to do any good, GAO needs to let Congress know within weeks, not months or years. Appropriations are annual. The fiscal year ends September 30. The Impoundment Control Act gives Congress 45 days after notification to veto a deferral.Under section 686 GAO “shall” make a report on the deferral to both Houses of Congress. The GAO report then operates as if it were the required notification from the President. That gives Congress 45 days to act (or, if the notice comes with less than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year, until September 30).Here, by not acting until the fourth month of the following fiscal year, GAO failed to do what section 686 requires.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-d...ey-know-it-11579297177?mod=opinion_lead_pos10

And as noted here

...
At the urging of Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Maryland), GAO now says that Trump administration delays in sending aid to Ukraine were illegal. For people who aren’t students of the Washington bureaucracy, it should be noted that few people consider GAO the authoritative word on legal issues. The Justice Department and ultimately of course the federal courts make the big calls.

In a new letter GAO’s general counsel argues that even though the Trump administration made aid for Ukraine available last September 12—before the Sept. 30 deadline for obligating funds—it still should have happened earlier. It’s not entirely clear which date would have made GAO happy but in the agency’s view the White House did not have an unavoidable “programmatic delay” which prevented funds from going to Ukraine.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that GAO is correct now. Wouldn’t the logic of this decision also apply to Vice President Joe Biden’s famous withholding of Ukraine aid until the local prosecutor investigating his son’s company was fired?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...from-the-swamp-11579208698?mod=article_inline

The above article goes on to note several other such GAO findings that money was not spent or appropriated properly, as the law requires, and no impeachments or people going to jail.

 

Biden threatened to withhold aid. He never did. The ICA requires the President notify Congress upon HIS INTENT OF WITHHOLDING OF AID. Read the Act. If the Ukraine had refused to respond to Biden's threat, he would have had to requested Obama inform Congress of the administration's intent to withhold aid and followed the ICA process.

 

You are dodging. Why do you think Trump's administration is accused of breaking the law here? What did they do wrong?

 

Go ask GAO I disagree with their findings, why they did it go ask them. I cited what they did wrong try addressing it.

 

Now dozens of times? Succumb to hysteria much?

 

The aid to Ukraine was released before the end of the fiscal year when it was required and Ukraine was never threatened with it. Read three messages up.

 

You are confusing the deadline associated with spending appropriations in the year they were appropriated (unless otherwise stated in the law). If not spent, Congress must reapportion the funds. The ICA requires the President notify Congress upon his INTENT to withhold funds. Again, read the Act. It reads that he must inform Congress of his PROPOSED withholding of funds. He didn't. He waited, I believe 55 days, without any formal Congressional notification and released the funds only AFTER Congress began inquiries. He broke the law.

 

"In a new letter GAO’s general counsel argues that even though the Trump administration made aid for Ukraine available last September 12—before the Sept. 30 deadline for obligating funds—it still should have happened earlier. It’s not entirely clear which date would have made GAO happy....."

 

No. I read the Mueller Report. You know, the report that I keep telling you to read?

 

LOL, Mueller, Mueller, Mueller. You are driving on a flat tire.

 

You keep going back to the fiscal year deadline, which has nothing to do with the ICA. There is no specific date in the ICA. It says the President must inform Congress of his proposed withholding of funds. It gives Congress 45 days to RESPOND to the President's notice. But that doesn't apply, because he never gave Congress notice in the first place.

 

Why don't you read the report instead of guessing?

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. SeeH.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives.Id., at 9. OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986.However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts."

 

If you're not going to bother then why post at all?

 

No. You screaming about a tire that you've never seen, which is a fully functional tire, and telling me something about that's not true fails as an "argument" every time.

 

You are dodging. Why do you think Trump's administration is accused of breaking the law here? What did they do wrong?

 

People who hate Trump say that because they want it to be true.