GAO rules Trump broke the law

[Zorro!]

The President briefly held up funds to Ukraine while probing accounts of corruption. In fact, the administration released military aid to Ukraine three weeks early.

Certainly not coincidentally, the GAO issued a report in time to toss it into the impeachment debate, falsely claiming that the president’s several week holdup of aid to Ukraine violated the Impoundment Control Act. It did not violate that Act. The GAO report was a partisan ploy and if the report’s findings were factual, it would violate the Constitution by circumscribing the authority of the chief executive.

The GAO is not nonpartisan, it is “a creature of Congress…”

“whose bureaucrats are represented by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers whose PAC in 2016 gave 100% of its donations to Democrats... its opinion was rendered at the request of Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.)..."
​

The relevant section of the law is section 686 which requires GAO report on a deferral of budget authority about which the president has failed to notify Congress. GAO must do this within weeks because the section is designed to give Congress timely information. Congress then has 45 days after notification to veto the deferral. The GAO failed to do what the law requires.

In any event, the GAO is not the finder of fact in impeachment. If it were, Obama should have been impeached seven times in which the GAO found the Obama administration had violated federal law.

Any ruling that the President has no right to withhold Ukraine Funds (as GAO falsely claims) would, in any event, violate the Constitution.

• The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.

• To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.

• Even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion -- which it is not -- the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents.

• If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law.

 

[Rambunctious]

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....

Where does the constitution say that?

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

For one Trump said it in his campaign...it was a campaign promise to clean up DC and be more responsible with our nations largest...we work hard to pay our taxes some of which that are sent to other nations...why don't you care is the question of the day....

His campaign promises are irrelevant in the fact of constitutional limitations on his power as president.

What limited constitutional power did he abuse?...the Ukraine got their money on time...so what is this?....

 

[Rambunctious]

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....

It's up to Congress, not the president.

Did the Ukraine get their money before the deadline?.....yes....so what is your problem?...don't you want to make sure your tax dollars are not wasted?...

Not quite. They got most of the money. Not all. Now what?

You will have to post a link on that assumption...its the first I've heard of them not getting all of their aid money....so until then I'm calling BS....

 

[colfax_m]

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....

It's up to Congress, not the president.

Did the Ukraine get their money before the deadline?.....yes....so what is your problem?...don't you want to make sure your tax dollars are not wasted?...

Not quite. They got most of the money. Not all. Now what?

You will have to post a link on that assumption...its the first I've heard of them not getting all of their aid money....so until then I'm calling BS....

Not an assumption. It was in the opening statement of Laura Cooper.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/cooper_opening_statement.pdf
Last page.

Aren't you glad we had witnesses testify about this?

 

[colfax_m]

Where does the constitution say that?

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

For one Trump said it in his campaign...it was a campaign promise to clean up DC and be more responsible with our nations largest...we work hard to pay our taxes some of which that are sent to other nations...why don't you care is the question of the day....

His campaign promises are irrelevant in the fact of constitutional limitations on his power as president.

What limited constitutional power did he abuse?...the Ukraine got their money on time...so what is this?....

Appropriations, obviously.

 

[Rambunctious]

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....

It's up to Congress, not the president.

Did the Ukraine get their money before the deadline?.....yes....so what is your problem?...don't you want to make sure your tax dollars are not wasted?...

Not quite. They got most of the money. Not all. Now what?

You will have to post a link on that assumption...its the first I've heard of them not getting all of their aid money....so until then I'm calling BS....

Not an assumption. It was in the opening statement of Laura Cooper.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/cooper_opening_statement.pdf
Last page.

Aren't you glad we had witnesses testify about this?

Dude it says the white house sent 86% of the funds to the Ukraine...."more than they were obligated to send"....so what are you talking about?...re read your own link dummy....

 

[Rambunctious]

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

For one Trump said it in his campaign...it was a campaign promise to clean up DC and be more responsible with our nations largest...we work hard to pay our taxes some of which that are sent to other nations...why don't you care is the question of the day....

His campaign promises are irrelevant in the fact of constitutional limitations on his power as president.

What limited constitutional power did he abuse?...the Ukraine got their money on time...so what is this?....

Appropriations, obviously.

You got zip zero nada...give me a break....you must be crazy to approve of even sending money to such a corrupt nation without some checks and balances...its shit like this that people voted for Trump to fix...and here you sit all TDS worried about the Ukraine.....unreal....

 

[CWayne]

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....

Where does the constitution say that?

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

So, the President determines when and how. As long as the entire amount is spent, it is perfectly legal to make judgment calls.

The GAO has no authority to do more than give their legal opinon. It has no force of law.

 

[Rambunctious]

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....

Where does the constitution say that?

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

So, the President determines when and how. As long as the entire amount is spent, it is perfectly legal to make judgment calls.

The GAO has no authority to do more than give their legal opinon. It has no force of law.

The white house was only obligated to send a portion by a certain date...and they did just that...Colfax is playing with words....

 

[CWayne]

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....

Where does the constitution say that?

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

So, the President determines when and how. As long as the entire amount is spent, it is perfectly legal to make judgment calls.

The GAO has no authority to do more than give their legal opinon. It has no force of law.

The white house was only obligated to send a portion by a certain date...and they did just that...Colfax is playing with words....

Of course, but they are trying to imply some legal force behind the GAO report and through that, make the case that the President does not have ANY discretion with regard to how money is spent in foreign policy negotiations.

That simply is not the case. Foreign affairs and policy are an Executive power, not a legislative one.

In my opinion, Presidents from Bush II up to Trump have failed to exercise their foreign policy powers appropriately.

In fact, we should not be sending a dime to any country on the planet, unless we get something specific from them.

The phrase, "They can hate us for free" was stated a few years back, and I think we should adhere to that kind of policy.

 

[colfax_m]

It's up to Congress, not the president.

Did the Ukraine get their money before the deadline?.....yes....so what is your problem?...don't you want to make sure your tax dollars are not wasted?...

Not quite. They got most of the money. Not all. Now what?

You will have to post a link on that assumption...its the first I've heard of them not getting all of their aid money....so until then I'm calling BS....

Not an assumption. It was in the opening statement of Laura Cooper.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/cooper_opening_statement.pdf
Last page.

Aren't you glad we had witnesses testify about this?

Dude it says the white house sent 86% of the funds to the Ukraine...."more than they were obligated to send"....so what are you talking about?...re read your own link dummy....

Want to try again, this time using a real quote?

 

[colfax_m]

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....

Where does the constitution say that?

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

So, the President determines when and how. As long as the entire amount is spent, it is perfectly legal to make judgment calls.

The GAO has no authority to do more than give their legal opinon. It has no force of law.

So hypothetically let’s say the president doesn’t send the whole amount. What then?

 

[CWayne]

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....

Where does the constitution say that?

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

So, the President determines when and how. As long as the entire amount is spent, it is perfectly legal to make judgment calls.

The GAO has no authority to do more than give their legal opinon. It has no force of law.

So hypothetically let’s say the president doesn’t send the whole amount. What then?

Why the Congress can write a bill admonishing him or her.

Something along the lines of the recent bill to keep Trump from waging a defensive operation against a known enemy.

Or they could take it to court. They have that right.

 

[The Original Tree]

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....

Where does the constitution say that?

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

So, the President determines when and how. As long as the entire amount is spent, it is perfectly legal to make judgment calls.

The GAO has no authority to do more than give their legal opinon. It has no force of law.

So hypothetically let’s say the president doesn’t send the whole amount. What then?

Nothing happens as Congress has no authority over Foreign Policy.

Several cases where Congress did nothing in matters where a member of the Executive Branch threatened to with hold or delay foreign aid.

1.) Joe Biden threatens to with hold Aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine fires the prosecutor investigating his son.

Ukraine fires the prosecutor.
Congress takes no Action.

2.) President Trump threatens to with hold aid to Guatemala unless they enforce their own immigration law.

Guatemala complies
Congress takes no Action.

3.) President Trump threatens to with hold aid to Honduras unless they enforce their own immigration law.

Honduras complies
Congress takes no Action.

4.) President Trump threatens to with hold aid to El Salvador unless they enforce their own immigration law.

El Salvador complies
Congress takes no Action.

5.) President Trump threatens to with hold aid to Mexico unless they enforce their own immigration law.

Mexico complies
Congress takes no Action.

6.) President Trump asks the Government of Ukraine to look in to corruption per the joint Anti-Corruption treaty between us.

Ukraine takes no action.
The Pelosi Lead House of Representatives goes postal and demands impeachment and investigations after spending 3 years investigating Russian Collusion only to have it proven to be a hoax, and failing at impeachment after The Mueller Report turned out to be a Dud.

One wonders why there was such an interest in Ukraine and money it was getting that even The Slightest Delay sent Pelosi and Friends in to epileptic fits.

My conclusion?

The Obama Administration and Friends, had insider trading going on in The Ukraine, and they lost a ton of money over the delay of Foreign Aid, and that is why they cared at all about it.

 

[colfax_m]

Where does the constitution say that?

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

So, the President determines when and how. As long as the entire amount is spent, it is perfectly legal to make judgment calls.

The GAO has no authority to do more than give their legal opinon. It has no force of law.

So hypothetically let’s say the president doesn’t send the whole amount. What then?

Why the Congress can write a bill admonishing him or her.

Something along the lines of the recent bill to keep Trump from waging a defensive operation against a known enemy.

Or they could take it to court. They have that right.

A bill admonishing Trump is going to accomplish what?
What is the court going to do about it?

 

[CWayne]

In the part where foreign diplomacy is the sole responsibility of the President.

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

So, the President determines when and how. As long as the entire amount is spent, it is perfectly legal to make judgment calls.

The GAO has no authority to do more than give their legal opinon. It has no force of law.

So hypothetically let’s say the president doesn’t send the whole amount. What then?

Why the Congress can write a bill admonishing him or her.

Something along the lines of the recent bill to keep Trump from waging a defensive operation against a known enemy.

Or they could take it to court. They have that right.

A bill admonishing Trump is going to accomplish what?
What is the court going to do about it?

Well, the courts would have to look at the arguments that Congress would make regarding the fact that Trump did not spend all the money they set aside to be spent. They will have to make the argument that they know better and that the President has to be a puppet of the legislation regarding how he spends money.

As for the admonishment, people would point and laugh at them much the same way they did when they wanted to limit Trump's ability to protect this country. With ridicule.

The simple fact of the matter is, to date, Trump has not violated any law regarding these choices. If he had, then Congress would be in court right now. Instead, they opted for an opinion impeachment that has no basis in law, is wholly partisan in nature, and is doomed to highlight their absolute failure as a body under the control of Democrats.

 

[JusticeHammer]

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

It also found Obama did, where's you're outrage over that?

 

[colfax_m]

And appropriations are the sole responsibility of Congress. If Congress decides that tax dollars should go somewhere, they have to go there.

So, the President determines when and how. As long as the entire amount is spent, it is perfectly legal to make judgment calls.

The GAO has no authority to do more than give their legal opinon. It has no force of law.

So hypothetically let’s say the president doesn’t send the whole amount. What then?

Why the Congress can write a bill admonishing him or her.

Something along the lines of the recent bill to keep Trump from waging a defensive operation against a known enemy.

Or they could take it to court. They have that right.

A bill admonishing Trump is going to accomplish what?
What is the court going to do about it?

Well, the courts would have to look at the arguments that Congress would make regarding the fact that Trump did not spend all the money they set aside to be spent. They will have to make the argument that they know better and that the President has to be a puppet of the legislation regarding how he spends money.

As for the admonishment, people would point and laugh at them much the same way they did when they wanted to limit Trump's ability to protect this country. With ridicule.

The simple fact of the matter is, to date, Trump has not violated any law regarding these choices. If he had, then Congress would be in court right now. Instead, they opted for an opinion impeachment that has no basis in law, is wholly partisan in nature, and is doomed to highlight their absolute failure as a body under the control of Democrats.

But you haven’t explained what the court could do about it. Let’s say they find that Trump has no authority to hold up the money. What then?

 

[Rambunctious]

Did the Ukraine get their money before the deadline?.....yes....so what is your problem?...don't you want to make sure your tax dollars are not wasted?...

Not quite. They got most of the money. Not all. Now what?

You will have to post a link on that assumption...its the first I've heard of them not getting all of their aid money....so until then I'm calling BS....

Not an assumption. It was in the opening statement of Laura Cooper.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/cooper_opening_statement.pdf
Last page.

Aren't you glad we had witnesses testify about this?

Dude it says the white house sent 86% of the funds to the Ukraine...."more than they were obligated to send"....so what are you talking about?...re read your own link dummy....

Want to try again, this time using a real quote?

That is a real quote dummy....when you don't read what you post you look silly....read it!!!

 

[colfax_m]

Not quite. They got most of the money. Not all. Now what?

You will have to post a link on that assumption...its the first I've heard of them not getting all of their aid money....so until then I'm calling BS....

Not an assumption. It was in the opening statement of Laura Cooper.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/cooper_opening_statement.pdf
Last page.

Aren't you glad we had witnesses testify about this?

Dude it says the white house sent 86% of the funds to the Ukraine...."more than they were obligated to send"....so what are you talking about?...re read your own link dummy....

Want to try again, this time using a real quote?

That is a real quote dummy....when you don't read what you post you look silly....read it!!!

Where the hell do you see that? It’s not in her statement. Did you butcher this passage:

After the decision to release the funds on Sept. 11 of this year, my colleagues across the D.O.D. security assistance enterprise worked tirelessly to be able to ultimately obligate about 86 percent of the funding by the end of the fiscal year, more than they had originally estimated they would be able to.