GAO rules Trump broke the law

[Sun Devil 92]

So being president is now illegal?....its up to the commander and chief to determine if our tax dollars we send to other nations will be used in a non corrupt fashion....OMB?...don't make us laugh...no one votes for the OMB....

Only if the law said he could.

Congress determines where the money is spent. If Congress said to sent Ukraine money, then he sends the money or goes back to congress.

We don't vote for the FBI, CIA either so we should ignore them too?

Did the Ukraine get their money or not?...did they get it within the time line?...YES to both questions...

Yes, Impeached Trump released the money after a whistleblower outed him.

So then you must agree the whistle blower jumped the gun....he didn't wait...I guess you could say he was enthusiastically gung ho to get the whistle blowing....give it up...everyone knows what happened...the weakest impeachment charges in history....shame on you and your sick and beaten political party....

Actually we should thank them.

They are making Trumps re-election that much easier.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The GAO found that the administration broke the Impoundment Control Act — a 1974 law that provides a mechanism for the executive branch to request that Congress reconsider a funding decision that’s been signed into law.

“This bombshell legal opinion from the independent Government Accountability Office demonstrates, without a doubt, that the Trump administration illegally withheld security assistance from Ukraine” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who requested GAO write the report in December.


The GAO report was widely expected to stay away from the specific House impeachment charges. House lawmakers impeached Trump on two counts, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Lawmakers alleged that the president abused the power of his office in withholding the money as leverage to pressure Zelensky into publicly announcing investigations that would undermine a political rival, and then obstructed the investigation into those actions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...0ea7aa-37a3-11ea-9c01-d674772db96b_story.html

I guess you just blew by the word "opinion" in your posting.

 

[MaryL]

Yep, they said that. It amounts to hill of beans. Democrats give sanctuary to illegal aliens violating federal law, AND without our consent. Nobody is above the law? Apparently Mexican illegal's are. And the Dems are quite willing to aid them. Without our usual consent or Democratic stuff....Lets instead, look into THAT. Oh, why not? We impeached Trump over a lot less...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A major defense point made by the Trump echo chamber has been to claim no codified law was broken. That defense talking point no longer has any weight or viability.

Pelosi's strategy for delaying the delivery of the impeachment articles has paid off for Democrats. It gave time for witnesses, possible defendants and their legal advisors to evaluate their options causing new evidence to be released.

Bingo.

Article I

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

(1) President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into —

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine — rather than Russia — interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents
.........................................................................................................................

All the Trumper arguments are falling apart one by one.

(Yawn)...good for you. This does nothing to prove that the GAO's OPINION, countered by the OMB's, is anything more than OPINION...and when you use terms like 'scheme' you display your bias. The House Democrats completely FAILED to present any crime, evidence, or witness before it voted to Impeach the President.

Of course it's there opinion you idiot, an opinion based on the law. Just like SC rulings are opinion based on the law.

You folks are twisting yourselves in knots defending Duplicitous Don and one by one the excuses are getting crushed.

The Constitution specifically vests Congress with the power of the purse, providing that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. The Constitution also vests all legislative powers in Congress and sets forth the procedures of bicameralism and presentment, through which the President may accept or veto a bill passed by both Houses of Congress, and Congress may subsequently override a presidential veto. Id., art. I, § 7, cl. 2, 3. The President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law. See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998) (the Constitution does not authorize the President “to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes”). Instead, he must “faithfully execute” the law as Congress enacts it. U.S. Const., art. II, § 3. An appropriations act is a law like any other; therefore, unless Congress has enacted a law providing otherwise, the President must take care to ensure that appropriations are prudently obligated during their period of availability. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017 (the ICA operates on the premise that the President is required to obligate funds appropriated by Congress, unless otherwise authorized to withhold). In fact, Congress was concerned about the failure to prudently obligate according to its Congressional prerogatives when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See generally, H.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”). The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation. See B-135564, July 26, 1973. Instead, Congress has vested the President with strictly circumscribed authority to impound, or withhold, budget authority only in limited circumstances as expressly provided in the ICA. See 2 U.S.C. §§ 681–688. The ICA separates impoundments into two exclusive categories—deferrals and rescissions. The President may temporarily withhold funds from obligation—but not beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President transmits the special message—by proposing a “deferral.”4 2 U.S.C. § 684. The President may also seek the permanent cancellation of funds for fiscal policy or other reasons, including the termination of programs for which Congress has provided budget authority, by proposing a “rescission.”5 2 U.S.C. § 683.

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

This part totally derails anything you had.

The President may temporarily withhold funds from obligation—but not beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President transmits the special message—by proposing a “deferral.”4 2 U.S.C. § 684


Please do not post in red. That is reserved for moderators. Admiral Rockwell Tory

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So Biden broke the law threatening to withhold $1 billion in aid

That's a lie not supported by the facts.

Biden bragged about it on video fool here this is for you

You think it’s against the law to threaten to withhold aid?

According to you people only if a Republican does it, perfectly fine for a Democrat to do this.

Trump did more than threaten to withhold aid.

No quid pro quo is why Trump held the funds..

Quid Pro Quo Joe got his demands met, so he didn't have to have the loans guarantees held.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A ruling from a government agency..........which would have been celebrated by Trumpette's had it gone the other way.........displays the importance of Trump having laid the groundwork for the Trumpette response. Anything like this gets labeled as coming from the non-existent "Deep State." Just as factual revelations of Trump's incompetence and corruption get dismissed as coming from the "fake news" media.

The construct he has created is very clever in its deceit. It allows any and all criticism of Trump to be neatly set aside as having no credibility..............when the opposite is true.

rulings by a govt agency usually means someone is getting fucked...i know, i seen this many a time in the 33 years i put in at the post office.....

The Post Office.
Oh My Gawd.

Hey, we all understand all you Trumpers are left with is disparagement of a well reasoned ruling by a respected government agency's legal team. It's always the same with you folks. When a judge rules against the admin you claim bias. When the media publishes a damning article it's "fake news." If a member of the FBI disagrees with something Trump does or says they're a member of the non-existent deep state.
We get it. You think Don is infallible. All cult members think their Dear leader is infallible. Guess what? He isn't.

He is, and shall remain President
Stuff that up your ass.

So..........your inability to provide any evidence of his innocence leads you to point out the duplicity of Senate Repubs ignoring the overwhelming........increasing by the day............evidence of his guilt? How sad.

Providing evidence of innocence? When did that enter our political lexicon? That sounds like something out of the Stalinist Soviet Union.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Did you miss the phrase “The opinion”?

No. Why do you ask?

Because your Thread title states itself as a fact, not an opinion.
So either you’re a mentally disturbed ideologue or a downright liar.

The GAO ruled Trump broke the law. That statement is a fact. It doesn't imply the ruling is legally binding. Are you too stupid to understand that?

They did not rule anything. They are not a court. It is their opinion that Trump broke the law, and we have already proven that his delay still met the letter of the law.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. Why do you ask?

Because your Thread title states itself as a fact, not an opinion.
So either you’re a mentally disturbed ideologue or a downright liar.

The GAO ruled Trump broke the law. That statement is a fact. It doesn't imply the ruling is legally binding. Are you too stupid to understand that?

It's a strait

Did you miss the phrase “The opinion”?

No. Why do you ask?

Because your Thread title states itself as a fact, not an opinion.
So either you’re a mentally disturbed ideologue or a downright liar.

it's not an opinion piece. It's a news story. You can disagree with it, of course.

The story states it’s an opinion.

An opinion is an editorial. A legal conclusion by the proper authority is a conclusion of law.

Then why is it stated as an opinion?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

“The GAO report identifies the OMB and not the President and said it was for policy reasons, not for political reasons,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told reporters Thursday. “I don’t think that it changes anything.”

Even Repub senators can't their lies straight.

"Already, documents and witness testimony in the impeachment inquiry make clear President Trump ordered the freeze."
Senate GOP Blows Off GAO Finding That Trump's Hold On Ukraine Aid Was Illegal

Well the issue for impeachment is not just that Trump held up the aid without complying legally with how a president can holdup aid. The issue for impeachment is WHY he held it up.

Of course the gop will acquit, but the fact that he didn't comply with OMB rules is evidence of his intent to hold up the aid specifically to damage Biden's political fortunes and help his own personal ambitions, and that would be grounds to kick him out of office

How would withholding funds have an impact on Biden?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Gov’t Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze
Gov't Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, a government watchdog agency that advises Congress, concluded Thursday that the hold President Trump ordered his Office of Management and Budget to place on Ukraine military assistance violated the law.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” a GAO opinion said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The opinion outlined the reasons holds can be legally placed on congressionally authorized funding, and said the rational given for freezing the Ukraine aid did not fit within those reasons.

“The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason,” the GAO said.
....................................................................................................................
So much for the Trumper assertion Trump broke no laws.

Nobody gives a fuck. Now, go get yourself a job...

Always a joy when a poster tells someone to get a job when he's posting during working hours.

How do you know what his working hours are?

I work 3:30 PM to midnight, so I post most often early in most people's workday. Now, don't you feel stupid? If not, take a hand and place it on top of your head. That's what stupid feels like!

 

[Lakhota]

Gov’t Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze
Gov't Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, a government watchdog agency that advises Congress, concluded Thursday that the hold President Trump ordered his Office of Management and Budget to place on Ukraine military assistance violated the law.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” a GAO opinion said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The opinion outlined the reasons holds can be legally placed on congressionally authorized funding, and said the rational given for freezing the Ukraine aid did not fit within those reasons.

“The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason,” the GAO said.
....................................................................................................................
So much for the Trumper assertion Trump broke no laws.

Trump* must pay for his crimes!

 

[LuckyDuck]

Gov’t Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze
Gov't Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, a government watchdog agency that advises Congress, concluded Thursday that the hold President Trump ordered his Office of Management and Budget to place on Ukraine military assistance violated the law.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” a GAO opinion said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The opinion outlined the reasons holds can be legally placed on congressionally authorized funding, and said the rational given for freezing the Ukraine aid did not fit within those reasons.

“The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason,” the GAO said.
....................................................................................................................
So much for the Trumper assertion Trump broke no laws.

All that matters is what the Republican majority Senate decides and the most likely decision will be "not guilty," after which, the Marxists need to finally shut up and crawl back under their rocks.

 

[Zorro!]

Gov’t Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze
Gov't Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, a government watchdog agency that advises Congress, concluded Thursday that the hold President Trump ordered his Office of Management and Budget to place on Ukraine military assistance violated the law.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” a GAO opinion said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The opinion outlined the reasons holds can be legally placed on congressionally authorized funding, and said the rational given for freezing the Ukraine aid did not fit within those reasons.

“The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason,” the GAO said.
....................................................................................................................
So much for the Trumper assertion Trump broke no laws.

They're wrong. First, it's not a crime, it's a tort. Second, if you read the whole report, you find the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle:

For fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $250 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). Pub. L. No. 115-245, § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044–45. The funds were available “to provide assistance, including training; equipment; lethal assistance; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine.” Id. § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044. The appropriation made the funds available for obligation through September 30, 2019.​

Had the administration not spent the funds at all, it would have been required to send a “special message” to Congress within 15 days of that decision to allow for both chambers to take action on it. The text of the ICA doesn’t place any effective limitation on the reason for such rescissions:

Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons (including the termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided), or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation for such fiscal year, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message specifying—

(1) the amount of budget authority which he proposes to be rescinded or which is to be so reserved;

(2) any account, department, or establishment of the Government to which such budget authority is available for obligation, and the specific project or governmental functions involved;

(3) the reasons why the budget authority should be rescinded or is to be so reserved;

(4) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the proposed rescission or of the reservation; and

(5) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed rescission or the reservation and the decision to effect the proposed rescission or the reservation, and to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated effect of the proposed rescission or the reservation upon the objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget authority is provided.​

The very text of the ICA envisions such rescissions taken for reasons of “fiscal policy or other reasons,” and has no explicit limitation on reasons. It even explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of canceling “authorized projects.” The ICA does require the president/administration to notify Congress of those decisions, but only when the money won’t be spent within the fiscal year. That makes sense, because to delay it past the September 30 date would force Congress to re-appropriate the money in the next cycle. Such a failure would violate the law – if in fact the money didn’t get spent.

In this case, the money did get spent within the budget year. As long as it got spent, there’s no violation. Delays don’t violate the ICA as long as it doesn’t go past the same fiscal year as the appropriation.

Congress proposed remedy for such failures within the ICA itself is to sue the administration to force it to spend the funds, not to criminally prosecute the president over it:

If, under this chapter, budget authority is required to be made available for obligation and such budget authority is not made available for obligation, the Comptroller General is hereby expressly empowered, through attorneys of his own selection, to bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require such budget authority to be made available for obligation, and such court is hereby expressly empowered to enter in such civil action, against any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States, any decree, judgment, or order which may be necessary or appropriate to make such budget authority available for obligation. No civil action shall be brought by the Comptroller General under this section until the expiration of 25 calendar days of continuous session of the Congress following the date on which an explanatory statement by the Comptroller General of the circumstances giving rise to the action contemplated has been filed with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.​

Under the agreement of both the executive and legislative branches in 1974, this is a civil matter, not a “high crime or misdemeanor.” It’s an absurdly picayune basis for removing an elected president, the head of a co-equal branch of government.

Buried deeply in the Washington Post report on the GAO’s conclusion, below where they quote Sen. Chris Murphy calling this a “bombshell,” readers discover just how mundane this finding actually is:

In cases of a violation, the most the GAO can do is sue the administration to release money, which has happened only once– in the 1970s. The lawsuit was later dismissed when the funds were released.
​

It’s an ongoing issue, barely even worth mentioning, especially when the funds ended up getting released anyway. It’s hardly surprising, given the thin case made by the House, that the media and Trump’s opponents are rushing around trying to come up with something.

Sad!

 

[colfax_m]

That's a lie not supported by the facts.

Biden bragged about it on video fool here this is for you

You think it’s against the law to threaten to withhold aid?

According to you people only if a Republican does it, perfectly fine for a Democrat to do this.

Trump did more than threaten to withhold aid.

No quid pro quo is why Trump held the funds..

Quid Pro Quo Joe got his demands met, so he didn't have to have the loans guarantees held.

“no quid pro quo” is why Trump held the funds?

that makes zero sense.

 

[kyzr]

Biden bragged about it on video fool here this is for you

You think it’s against the law to threaten to withhold aid?

According to you people only if a Republican does it, perfectly fine for a Democrat to do this.

Trump did more than threaten to withhold aid.

No quid pro quo is why Trump held the funds..

Quid Pro Quo Joe got his demands met, so he didn't have to have the loans guarantees held.

“no quid pro quo” is why Trump held the funds?

that makes zero sense.

QPQ means "this for that". There was no this, and there was no that. No crime, no foul, no harm, no anything. Call it a big nothingburger.
Trump could have held the funds for many reasons or no reasons, its not a crime.

 

[eagle1462010]

Defying Obama, Many in Congress Press to Arm Ukraine

Take a walk down history lane and Obama............Congress and Senate signing authorizations for LETHAL WEAPONS to Ukraine.

Obama refused to give it to them...........DID THEY IMPEACH OBAMA for it.........NOPE.......Different standards from the ASSHAT LEFT.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Biden bragged about it on video fool here this is for you

You think it’s against the law to threaten to withhold aid?

According to you people only if a Republican does it, perfectly fine for a Democrat to do this.

Trump did more than threaten to withhold aid.

No quid pro quo is why Trump held the funds..

Quid Pro Quo Joe got his demands met, so he didn't have to have the loans guarantees held.

“no quid pro quo” is why Trump held the funds?

that makes zero sense.

You are dumber than a rock with lips!

Trump held the funds but got nothing in return and released them prior to the requirements of the law. How libtards conjure up a crime out of that is beyond comprehension.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Gov’t Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze
Gov't Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, a government watchdog agency that advises Congress, concluded Thursday that the hold President Trump ordered his Office of Management and Budget to place on Ukraine military assistance violated the law.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” a GAO opinion said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The opinion outlined the reasons holds can be legally placed on congressionally authorized funding, and said the rational given for freezing the Ukraine aid did not fit within those reasons.

“The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason,” the GAO said.
....................................................................................................................
So much for the Trumper assertion Trump broke no laws.

Since when does the GAO offer anything but accounting figures and tabulations of values?

Appropriations Law Decisions

The digest of GAO legal opinions on appropriations goes back to at least 2003. Plus, it's in the job description:

• Appropriations Law: GAO issues legal opinions and decisions to Congress and federal agencies on the use of, and accountability for, public funds, including ruling on potential violations of the Antideficiency Act.
• Other Legal Work: GAO issues legal opinions and decisions to Congress and federal agencies on the use of, and accountability for, public funds, including ruling on potential violations of the Antideficiency Act.

 

[eagle1462010]

U.S. Aims to Block Chinese Acquisition of Ukrainian Aerospace Company

This was a main reason for a delay in aid..............Ukraine was allowing China to get advanced tech engines from Ukraine that would increase their Stealth tech............

Where the hell is the media on that topic..........

 

[colfax_m]

You think it’s against the law to threaten to withhold aid?

According to you people only if a Republican does it, perfectly fine for a Democrat to do this.

Trump did more than threaten to withhold aid.

No quid pro quo is why Trump held the funds..

Quid Pro Quo Joe got his demands met, so he didn't have to have the loans guarantees held.

“no quid pro quo” is why Trump held the funds?

that makes zero sense.

You are dumber than a rock with lips!

Trump held the funds but got nothing in return and released them prior to the requirements of the law. How libtards conjure up a crime out of that is beyond comprehension.

Trump released the funds the day after the whistleblower account was made known to Congress. Not all the money was released because he waited too long and they couldn’t disburse the funds in such a short time frame.

And since when does the fact that a corrupt scheme fails mean that the scheme isn’t corrupt?