Impeachment Related: GAO Determines Trump Violated Impoundment Control Act

[lilpixieofterror]

Jim is throwing shade like others and, like others, is doing so in the context of trying to make affirmative and substantive contributions to the topic. In particular, he has provided substantive distinctions that amount to more than "reasons or something" -- you have avoided any sort of substantive rebuttal of those points. You're free to snark but, like others, I'm asking that you do the work of making an affirmative and substantive case for your point and earn the privilege of throwing shade.

When you're willing to do that, feel free to come back. Until then, I'm asking that you do not continue to drag the thread away from its purpose.

--Sam

I see, so you want affirming of what you already believe. My mistake, I thought you actually wanted to discuss things vs a hand wave. I won’t make that mistake again.

[JimL]

And what crime is that? Cite the specific legal statute that was supposedly violated and the evidence that you could take court to prove it.

The abuse of power crimes for which he is about to go to trial. Or are you not aware that he is going to trial.

[Cow Poke]

The abuse of power crimes for which he is about to go to trial. Or are you not aware that he is going to trial.

You can't just insert the word "crimes" and magically make it a crime, let alone multiple crimes, Jim.

[Sam]

It is not necessary to cite any violation of criminal code to justify impeachment; that argument has been raised and answered in numerous other threads and a repeat of a repeat serves as a distraction here.

The GAO has determined that Trump violated the law. That violation is alleged to have occurred as part of an effort by Trump to abuse his power in using official government resources for personal, political ends.

If folks want to talk about how the GAO wrongly determined the administration's violation, that's meritorious. If people want to to argue about how the violation ties into impeachment, that's meritorious. If people just want to keep arguing "What crimes did the President commit?", we've had that discussion and it's mooted for our purposes here.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

It is not necessary to cite any violation of criminal code to justify impeachment;

Then why keep putting the word "crime" in the accusations? Calling something a "crime" indicates a violation of a CRIMINAL CODE.

Perhaps you should explain this to JimL.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm sorry but I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion.

This is a procedural issue, not a criminal one.

Your claim was that the OMB footnotes to DOD constituted "notification to Congress" and so GAO's ruling was in error.

I still am convinced that it is. But, in spite of my belief, even if I am incorrect, the remedy was in place in the law, and the Comptroller did not exercise it. It is not up to the POTUS to make the Comptroller comply.

Apart from that, we're not talking about what the typical remedy for violating the ICA is. As mentioned before, Trump violated the ICA as part of a wider effort to abuse his power for personal gain -- that's what he's being impeached for.

And he will remain in office because his actions were for the benefit of the US, not his personal gain. That his personal interests happened to align with the intended purpose of what was good of the US is irrelivant - a fact that the House Dems ignored to their dying breath.

The violation of the ICA is just an element, one that should factor into the "Where's the crime?" question. This isn't a criminal violation, of course, but impeachment doesn't require a criminal violation.

--Sam

Impeachment only requires a vote. It requires nothing more than "I don't like you, Mr. President"

[Mountain Man]

The abuse of power crimes for which he is about to go to trial. Or are you not aware that he is going to trial.

Here is what I asked:

And what crime is that? Cite the specific legal statute that was supposedly violated and the evidence that you could take court to prove it.

Simply repeating your assertion doesn't answer the question.

[Sam]

Here is what I asked:


Simply repeating your assertion doesn't answer the question.

Allow me to be more specific: change people's usernames with the quote function at all and you'll be asked to leave, with moderation requested if necessary.

--Sam

[JimL]

You can't just insert the word "crimes" and magically make it a crime, let alone multiple crimes, Jim.

They are crimes in so far as the the office of the president goes. Abuse of power are not necessarily crimes as codified by law though they certainly can be and are included in this case. Again, Andrew Johnson was impeached 35-19 and was saved in the Senate by one vote for abuse of power, not for "what you're calling a "crime," not for violating an actual law, but for the abuse of his power.

[Cow Poke]

They are crimes in so far as the the office of the president goes. Abuse of power are not necessarily crimes as codified by law though they certainly can be and are included in this case. Again, Andrew Johnson was impeached 35-19 and was saved in the Senate by one vote for abuse of power, not for "what you're calling a "crime," not for violating an actual law.

Cool, and that and 50cents will get you a senior cup of coffee at McDonalds, but when all is said and done, there will be FAR more said than done.

I'll see myself out.

[Sam]

This is a procedural issue, not a criminal one.



I still am convinced that it is. But, in spite of my belief, even if I am incorrect, the remedy was in place in the law, and the Comptroller did not exercise it. It is not up to the POTUS to make the Comptroller comply.



And he will remain in office because his actions were for the benefit of the US, not his personal gain. That his personal interests happened to align with the intended purpose of what was good of the US is irrelivant - a fact that the House Dems ignored to their dying breath.



Impeachment only requires a vote. It requires nothing more than "I don't like you, Mr. President"

The substance of your argument is:

1) An OMB footnote to DOD constitutes a legitimate notification of Congress

... and, actually, we can stop there because that's self-evidently false. You can't conceivably argue that one executive agency notifying a different executive agency in a footnote constitutes a "notification to Congress". It's just not and anyone who says it is would have to be so self-delusional that they'll believe anything that advances their interests. It's the same sort of delusion that allows one to say that Trump acted in the nation's interest, despite the entirety of his diplomatic and national security agencies advocating against the actions his own attorney said were personal pursuits and explicitly not part of his presidential duties.

The core issue for this thread was that Trump's hold on Ukrainian security funds violated the law, that Trump ordered this violation as a part of his effort to abuse his power, and that the Trump administration is still obstructing Congress by refusing to release information to GAO. If the counterargument is that OMB didn't violate its duty to notify Congress because it notified DOD, there's no question as to the first charge and little point in debating the second.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Allow me to be more specific: change people's usernames with the quote function at all and you'll be asked to leave, with moderation requested if necessary.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Andrew Johnson was impeached 35-19 and was saved in the Senate by one vote for abuse of power...

Ironically, Johnson's impeachment has come to be widely regarded as an abuse of power by Congress who attempted to hamstring the president with an unconstitutional law that was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court.

[Bill the Cat]

The substance of your argument is:

1) An OMB footnote to DOD constitutes a legitimate notification of Congress

... and, actually, we can stop there because that's self-evidently false.

No it isn't. It happens frequently. Have you ever had to prepare a budget to send to DoD? I have. Footnotes or line items in a spreadsheet are legitimate notifications because the entire document is an official record. There is no official DoD format for a notification to Congress.

You can't conceivably argue that one executive agency notifying a different executive agency in a footnote constitutes a "notification to Congress". It's just not and anyone who says it is would have to be so self-delusional that they'll believe anything that advances their interests.

It happens every day, Sam.

It's the same sort of delusion that allows one to say that Trump acted in the nation's interest, despite the entirety of his diplomatic and national security agencies advocating against the actions his own attorney said were personal pursuits and explicitly not part of his presidential duties.

Citation? I know some Obama leftover lackeys were disagreeing, but I'd like to see your proof that "the entirety" were against it.

The core issue for this thread was that Trump's hold on Ukrainian security funds violated the law, that Trump ordered this violation as a part of his effort to abuse his power, and that the Trump administration is still obstructing Congress by refusing to release information to GAO. If the counterargument is that OMB didn't violate its duty to notify Congress because it notified DOD, there's no question as to the first charge and little point in debating the second.

--Sam

Precisely. One has to make a blatant assumption that Trump ordered the hold in order to abuse his power. Only Trump can answer that. And thus far, the evidence is pretty favorable that it was a policy decision, not a personal one.

[Sam]

No it isn't. It happens frequently. Have you ever had to prepare a budget to send to DoD? I have. Footnotes or line items in a spreadsheet are legitimate notifications because the entire document is an official record. There is no official DoD format for a notification to Congress.



It happens every day, Sam.



Citation? I know some Obama leftover lackeys were disagreeing, but I'd like to see your proof that "the entirety" were against it.



Precisely. One has to make a blatant assumption that Trump ordered the hold in order to abuse his power. Only Trump can answer that. And thus far, the evidence is pretty favorable that it was a policy decision, not a personal one.

A note to the Department of Defense is, by definition, not a notification to Congress. And Sandy testified that the footnote was inserted because a direct notification to Congress would have caused problems when members of Congress demanded to know why the funds were being withheld. This isn't a point of argument: you either acknowledge that Congress was not directly notified of the hold, as the law demands, or you exist in an alt-world where the Pentagon getting a footnote notification counts as a direct notification to Congress. But in this world, such an assertion is logically and definitionally false.

Trump-appointed diplomatic and budgetary officials testified that Trump's hold of Ukrainian security funds ran against US diplomatic and national security interests, as well as the consensus in the agencies responsible for those affairs. Trump-appointed diplomatic personnel testified that Trump's quid quo pro requests to investigate Biden was improper and counter to US diplomatic interests. Diplomatic officials even warned that Trump's assertion that Ukraine was responsible for the DNC/DSCC hack, rather than Russia, was a propaganda effort by the Russian government. This has all been poured over and litigated numerous times. To reduce it to "Obama leftover lackeys" shows a gross incompetence of handling the basic facts surrounding the last four months.

And, as those testimonies and documentary evidence has amply shown, this was far from a policy decision. It was, in fact, something that policy workers in both the diplomatic agencies and budgetary agencies had to work against, as the OMB correspondence during the hold shows quite clearly.

Source: Exclusive: Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of PentagonÂ’s Legal Concerns. Kate Brannen. JustSecurity.org. 2020.01.02

What is clear is that it all came down to the president and what he wanted; no one else appears to have supported his position. Although the pretext for the hold was that some sort of policy review was taking place, the emails make no mention of that actually happening. Instead, officials were anxiously waiting for the president to be convinced that the hold was a bad idea. And while the situation continued throughout the summer, senior defense officials were searching for legal guidance, worried they would be blamed should the hold be lifted too late to actually spend all of the money, which would violate the law. The emails also reveal key decision points, moments when senior officials hoped the hold might be lifted. This includes Vice President Mike PenceÂ’s September meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which a senior defense official expected would resolve the funding issue, raising the question: Why? What was supposed to come out of that meeting that would pave the way for Trump to lift the hold? What was Pence expected to communicate?


But, the hold wasnÂ’t immediately lifted after PenceÂ’s meeting with Zelenskyy. Instead, the president finally released the money on Sept. 11, just as the whistleblower complaint was about to break into the open.

...

As the month wore on, the emails show officials bending over backwards to make every conceivable accommodation to keep the process moving without actually being able to obligate the funding. The idea was that as soon as the funds were given the green light, there would be zero delay, and presumably, impoundments could be avoided.


But tension began to build between the Defense Department and OMB toward the end of August as the funding hold complicated all of the contractual processes that needed to take place in order to buy the equipment for Ukraine. OMB was pushing the Defense Department to micromanage down to the lowest level — the field contracting offices — in an apparent effort to buy time and keep the process on track even though the hold was upending everything. The Pentagon was growing frustrated.


On Aug. 20, OMB issued another footnote, extending the hold through Aug. 26. It did not include any language flagging the growing risk.


In an Aug. 21 email to her DOD colleagues, McCusker notes that members of the House Appropriations Committee traveled to Ukraine earlier that month and sent the Pentagon a request for information regarding the funding.


On Aug. 26, Duffey let McCusker know that the funding hold was being extended again.


McCusker responded, “What is the status of the impoundment paperwork?”


To which Duffey, replied, “I am not tracking that. Is that something you are expecting from OMB?”


McCusker: “Yes, it is now necessary — legal teams were discussing last week.”

© Copyright Original Source

But if your contention is that only Trump can answer for his motivations (clearly a false assertion but let's roll with it), then you would rationally expect -- even demand -- that Trump be deposed under oath, as Clinton was?

--Sam