Impeachment Related: GAO Determines Trump Violated Impoundment Control Act

[oxmixmudd]

Pix, you are off the rails again. If you can produce violations that are clearly of a similar naturexand purpose of this violation by Trump, then you have a point, if not, you dont. So get to establishing you have a point, unless there is no such example.

[lilpixieofterror]

Pix, you are off the rails again. If you can produce violations that are clearly of a similar naturexand purpose of this violation by Trump, then you have a point, if not, you dont. So get to establishing you have a point, unless there is no such example.

[oxmixmudd]

So you don't have an example of purposed manipulation by the Obama administration. Fair enough. I would not know enough about how easy or hard it is to bump up against incidental violations of this law to know the answer to the question of incompentence or willful violation. However, consider that in traffic law we have purposefully driving at +4mph in a 35mph school zone, and purposefully driving at 120mph in a 35mph school zone. And while they are both 'purposful violations of the law', there is no equivalence. Indeed, it is quite rare to see someone given a ticket for +4mph school zone. And quite common to see someone using a moped for a while (if not spending some time in jail) after being stopped for 120mph in a 35mph school zone.

You see, you are cherry picking terms to try to force me into arguing there is some sort of equivalence here when there isn't. The law exists to stop what Trump did. It does not exist as a tool to harshly punish administrations trying to do good things that bump up against ad hoc boundaries. But you know that already.

So back to it: Do you have an example of the Obama administration similarly abusing its power WRT this particular sort of blocking of congressionally allocated funds.

Since the reactions of the employees in the OMB to Trump's attempt to block such a large and sensitive set of funds was anywhere from shock to resignation, and no such actions seem to have been found in any administration since nixon except for Trumps, I would hazard to guess the answer is 'no'.

[Sam]

I'm going to ask that you pair your questions and snark with a substantive argument regarding the OP. Specifically, it's not sufficient to say "See, Obama broke the law, too!" -- to prevent this thread from derailing, please explain 1) why Obama's 2014 violation is relevant to Trump's 2019 violation and/or 2) why the GAO's decision regarding Trump's 2019 violation was in error.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Based on the posts made here concerning the sorts of violations attributed to Obama as they compare with what Trump has done, that most certainly does define your thinking.

Can you give an example not yet mentioned of Obama abusing this policy in a way that is even close by comparison to what Trump has done?

So far with obama we are talking about technicalities, procedural delays that bumped up against arbitrary limits, not willful, purposed deception and violation for personal gain.

Your question assumes certain premises that are in dispute. For one thing, I don't think Trump has done what you think he's done.

[Sam]

The only repercussion listed in the Act is for the Comptroller to sue the President to release the funds. And that lawsuit will then be considered "official notification" to Congress of the hold.

I'm sorry but I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion. Your claim was that the OMB footnotes to DOD constituted "notification to Congress" and so GAO's ruling was in error.

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. 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

[Mountain Man]

Trump held up funds, which wouldn't in itself be impeachable except in connection with the crime it was associated with.

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.

[Sam]

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.

If you change people's usernames to an insult, I will ask you leave and I will request that be enforced through moderation.

--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

So you don't have an example of purposed manipulation by the Obama administration. Fair enough. I would not know enough about how easy or hard it is to bump up against incidental violations of this law to know the answer to the question of incompentence or willful violation. However, consider that in traffic law we have purposefully driving at +4mph in a 35mph school zone, and purposefully driving at 120mph in a 35mph school zone. And while they are both 'purposful violations of the law', there is no equivalence. Indeed, it is quite rare to see someone given a ticket for +4mph school zone. And quite common to see someone using a moped for a while (if not spending some time in jail) after being stopped for 120mph in a 35mph school zone.

You see, you are cherry picking terms to try to force me into arguing there is some sort of equivalence here when there isn't. The law exists to stop what Trump did. It does not exist as a tool to harshly punish administrations trying to do good things that bump up against ad hoc boundaries. But you know that already.

So back to it: Do you have an example of the Obama administration similarly abusing its power WRT this particular sort of blocking of congressionally allocated funds.

Since the reactions of the employees in the OMB to Trump's attempt to block such a large and sensitive set of funds was anywhere from shock to resignation, and no such actions seem to have been found in any administration since nixon except for Trumps, I would hazard to guess the answer is 'no'.

[Mountain Man]

If you change people's usernames to an insult, I will ask you leave and I will request that be enforced through moderation.

--Sam

[oxmixmudd]

No I'm not. I'm not making any sort of decision about whether they willfully bumped up against the boundaries or incidentally bumped up against the boundaries. What I'm saying it that what they did was within normal and acceptable bounds, and while it technically might have violated the law, it did not do so in a way that constituted abuse of the power of the presidency or in a way that warranted punitive action, in the same way that +4 in a school zone is not a sufficiently egregious violation of the law as to warrant punitive action.

To use your own speeding example, if someone is going 5 miles over the speed limit the first time, it can be written off as a mistake, but six different time? At what point is it no longer a mistake? Do you seriously not understand this point? Have you seriously never seen anyone playing stupid, to get out of trouble?

Where I live, no-one is given tickets solely for driving +4 over the speed limit, no matter how many times they do it. +4 is, in fact, likely going to be one of the slower cars on the road.

Yes they do. Nearly everyone in this country drives somewhere between 1 and 5 mph above the speed limit. Most people on interstates are 3 to 8mph over. It is the custom in this country NOT to drive at or below the speed limit. It is 'wrong' to mildly speed in name only. It is not enforced unless the person is driving recklessly (or that county needs some revenue). I do not know the custom of how this issue is handled or how violations occur as it relates to the OMB etc, but in the examples shown so far in this thread, Obama was not abusing his power, necessary actions just didn't quite fit into the ad hoc boundaries of the law.

Trump seriously abused this law, and for personal gain, not national interest. Just like a person driving 120MPH in a 35MPH school zone. Obama bumped up against it - more like a fellow wanting to shave an hour of a 12 hour business trip on an interstate driving at +7. It just is not the same thing.

[lilpixieofterror]

No I'm not. I'm not making any sort of decision about whether they willfully bumped up against the boundaries or incidentally bumped up against the boundaries. What I'm saying it that what they did was within normal and acceptable bounds, and while it technically might have violated the law, it did not do so in a way that constituted abuse of the power of the presidency or in a way that warranted punitive action, in the same way that +4 in a school zone is not a sufficiently egregious violation of the law as to warrant punitive action.

Where I live, no-one is given tickets solely for driving +4 over the speed limit, no matter how many times they do it. +4 is, in fact, likely going to be one of the slower cars on the road.

Yes they do. Nearly everyone in this country drives somewhere between 1 and 5 mph above the speed limit. Most people on interstates are 3 to 8mph over. It is the custom in this country NOT to drive at or below the speed limit. It is 'wrong' to mildly speed in name only. It is not enforced unless the person is driving recklessly (or that county needs some revenue). I do not know the custom of how this issue is handled or how violations occur as it relates to the OMB etc, but in the examples shown so far in this thread, Obama was not abusing his power, necessary actions just didn't quite fit into the ad hoc boundaries of the law.

Trump seriously abused this law, and for personal gain, not national interest. Just like a person driving 120MPH in a 35MPH school zone. Obama bumped up against it - more like a fellow wanting to shave an hour of a 12 hour business trip on an interstate driving at +7. It just is not the same thing.

[Sam]

If you're going to continue, LPoT, I have to ask that you make a substantial, affirmative case tying into the OP. Incessant and ever-changing questions sprinkled with snark and venom alone are not sufficient.You can do all that but you have to be a meaningful contributor to the topic, too.--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

If you're going to continue, LPoT, I have to ask that you make a substantial, affirmative case tying into the OP. Incessant and ever-changing questions sprinkled with snark and venom alone are not sufficient.You can do all that but you have to be a meaningful contributor to the topic, too.--Sam

[Sam]

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