Impeachment Related: GAO Determines Trump Violated Impoundment Control Act

[Sam]

Breaking today: the Government Accountability Office has determined that Trump's decision to withhold Ukrainian security funds violated the Impoundment Control Act, established after Nixon's resignation.

The full text doesn't appear to be online yet but Senator Van Hollen shared the first page:

Screen Shot 2020-01-16 at 10.02.31 AM.jpg

Violation of the ICA is #8 on JustSecurity's list of potential crimes and violations committed by Trump regarding the matters surrounding his impeachment.

--Sam

[Sam]

Natasha Bertrand has screenshots of the full GAO memo here.

Source:

CONCLUSION:

OMB violated the ICA when it withheld DOD's USAI funds from obligation for policy reasons. This impoundment of budget activity was not a programmatic delay.

OMB and State have failed, as of yet, to provide the information we need to fulfill our duties under the ICA regarding potential impoundment of FMF funds. We will continue to pursue this matter and will provide our decision to Congress after we have received the necessary information.

We consider a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional significance. GAO's role under the ICA--to provide information and legal analysis to Congress as it performs oversight of executive activity--is essential to ensuring respect for allegiance to Congress' constitutional power of the purse. All federal officials and employees take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and its core tenets, including the congressional power of the purse. We trust that State and OMB will provide the information needed.

© Copyright Original Source

[Bill the Cat]

Keep flinging poo. Something is eventually going to stick... That's the left's approach.

[Sam]

I'm going to request, for this thread, that comments at least include a substantive post concerning the merits of the GAO decision.

You can snark but you gotta earn it.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

OMB Official Mark Sandy declared in sworn testimony:



So, Congress was notified, and the funds were released before expiring. So, no this was not running afoul of this Act.

[Sam]

OMB Official Mark Sandy declared in sworn testimony:



So, Congress was notified, and the funds were released before expiring. So, no this was not running afoul of this Act.

Sandy's argument was that Congress was notified by virtue of footnotes being placed in funding documents instead of direct notification to Congress. As GAO determined today, that method was insufficient to comply with the law.

Not all funds were released before the end of the fiscal year, requiring Congress to pass another law allowing the release of the remaining funds.

So, yes, as GAO determines above, OMB violated the ICA, notwithstanding the after-the-fact legal justifications that OMB attempted to argue.

--Sam

[Sam]

Moreover:

GAO's determination that OMB withheld funding for policy rather than programmatic reasons is important, both to the determination of a violation and to the issue of impeachment: the executive branch, after the President signs something into law, cannot withhold funding for policy purposes. The time to dispute funding policy is before the President agrees to it by signing a bill into law. Regarding impeachment, the policy reason for withholding the funds was Trump's attempt to make Zelensky announce investigations into Biden and the non-existent Ukraine DNC server -- "policy" that we know was being pursued as a matter of Trump's personal, rather than presidential, interest.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

Sandy's argument was that Congress was notified by virtue of footnotes being placed in funding documents instead of direct notification to Congress. As GAO determined today, that method was insufficient to comply with the law.

That's for the Judicial Branch to determine, not the Legislative GAO. The GAO findings are like investigators findings. They are non-binding opinion.

Not all funds were released before the end of the fiscal year, requiring Congress to pass another law allowing the release of the remaining funds.

Nope. Not all the funds were SPENT before the end of the FY, but that's not against the act.

So, yes, as GAO determines above, OMB violated the ICA, notwithstanding the after-the-fact legal justifications that OMB attempted to argue.

--Sam

And the GAO is a Legislative Branch entity with no teeth. Until a Judicial Branch entity says it was a violation of the law, this is just another poop fling.

[JimL]

Keep flinging poo. Something is eventually going to stick... That's the left's approach.

Yes, it's just that nothing will stick with the likes of you. That's the rights approach when it comes to the law.

[Bill the Cat]

Yes, it's just that nothing will stick with the likes of you. That's the rights approach when it comes to the law.

No, dumbass. A Legislative entity can not determine the legality of an action that potentially meets the law. It is the opinion of the GAO that the footnotes were insufficient. And there is no precedent for charging someone with violating the Act. Several SCOTUS cases deal with particular aspects, but no decision on whether it is within the POTUS' power to delay funding based on perceived illegal activity.

[Sam]

That's for the Judicial Branch to determine, not the Legislative GAO. The GAO findings are like investigators findings. They are non-binding opinion.



Nope. Not all the funds were SPENT before the end of the FY, but that's not against the act.



And the GAO is a Legislative Branch entity with no teeth. Until a Judicial Branch entity says it was a violation of the law, this is just another poop fling.

It's not for the judicial branch to determine; the judicial branch can certainly make a ruling on the matter, if a valid claim is brought to it. But, absent that, the GAO is making a determination that the executive branch violated the ICA. You have not provided any sort of rebuttal to that assessment except to 1) say footnotes count, even though OMB implemented the footnote option explicitly to avoid directly informing Congress of the hold according to law and 2) some trash-talking about GAO.

That is unpersuasive and very obviously made with partisan intent.

Millions of dollars of the Ukraine security funding was not dispersed in time to meet the requirements of the ICA. That's not a matter of argument, it's a statement of fact.



--Sam

[Sam]

Obviously, if Congress determines that Trump violated a law in order to pursue a personal or political goal, it can go to the Judiciary and sue. It can also impeach the President for violating the law as part of a larger effort to abuse his power.

[Sam]

Yes, it's just that nothing will stick with the likes of you. That's the rights approach when it comes to the law.

Here again, I'm not going to try and keep people from snarking but you've got to earn it -- if you've got a snappy/snarky retort on this thread, please make sure you're pairing it with a substantive commentary on the merits of the GAO report.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

I'm going to request, for this thread, that comments at least include a substantive post concerning the merits of the GAO decision.

You can snark but you gotta earn it.

--Sam

So, the GOA failed. Is there any evidence that they tried to resist Trump's directive, assuming there was one, or that they informed him it would be a violation of law?

[insert something snarky here]

[Cow Poke]

Here again, I'm not going to try and keep people from snarking but you've got to earn it -- if you've got a snappy/snarky retort on this thread, please make sure you're pairing it with a substantive commentary on the merits of the GAO report.

--Sam

Interesting. Not a bad idea.