he independent watchdog said the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld the appropriated funds last summer, not as a programmatic delay but in order to advance the presidents own agenda.
The article might as well replace GOA with “House Democrats”.
Since when has the GAO become a legal “fact-finder?”
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 has never been tried in the SCOTUS, IIRC..............
What law?
USC Title, please, so we can read it.
The independent watchdog
No it is not. Right on time 5 days before the trial. But yeah an independent watchdog. Where is the law that we have to give money to Ukraine?
Psssst. The president is allowed to do this to meet his agenda. His only requirement is that he release the funds before a cutoff date, which he did. The rest is partisan irrelevance.
Is that an assumption, hearsay, or an opinion? Unless they have it is writing, it is meaningless.
Funny, I do not find the GAO ruled Biden broke laws when he threaten to with hold $1 Billion Dollars... but, thats just Joe.....
"Faithful exection of the law?" What a joke. At most, Trump only delayed those payments for a couple of months. Contrast that with Obama's order not to enforce immigration law, and concurrent grant of benefits to people who were in the country illegally. And not a peep from the Dems, the media, or the GAO.
OMG!! This is Hugh!!
The same Deep State that is trying to run a coup detat has found that their coup is legal and the President isnt.
OH NOES!!!
Put differently, same Deep State, different channel.
Billions in state department cash is piling up to go to the laundry and come back to the Beltway clean as snow. Trump is standing in the way of the delivery trucks. The deep state cleaning operation needs Trump gone.
The GAO is now totally exposed as being a partisan hack organization.
The delayed funds were released prior to cut off date — how can that be in violation of some imaginary law?
Furthermore, the President is fully within his right to consider protecting tax payer money from being used for foreign corrupt purposes.
This is more about protecting the DS foreign aid political payoff gravy train that has gone on far too long.
Who cares? The OMB has budgetary discretion and Im sure they got legal advice on what to do.
How in the world do GAO bureaucrats know different?
Any yet Barry Soetoro was allowed to pick and choose which federal laws he would obey . . . sickening!
I read that law in detail. (IANAL)
The Act allows the President to delay Congressionally-prescribed spending up to 45 days for the purpose of requesting Congress rescind the order to spend. If Congress does not rescind spending within that 45 day period, the legislated spending is not and can not be rescinded; the President is obligated to commence spending accordingly.
Note that the _purpose_ of the 45 days is to allow President to request and Congress to rescind the spending. There is nothing actually obligating President to send a request to Congress (I’d assume “time to consider asking” is allowed for the delay), only that if it does get rescinded Congress must complete the process within 45 days of the start of the spending delay.
Democrats are construing this as “President is criminally violating law if he doesn’t commence the spending within 45 days”.
That’s not the case.
The law in question then states that IF the President does not commence the spending in 45 days, the Comptroller General _may_ bring civil suit to compel the spending - and must give Congress 25 days notice before doing so.
This did not happen.
Instead of following the prescribed process for compelling legislated spending, Democrats leapt to “abuse of power!” rather waiting the minimum 70 days before obligating Trump to explain himself to a judge.
Trump began the legislated Ukrainian military spending after a 48 day delay.
The 45 days can be construed as “time to think about issues supporting request of rescindment”.
The next 3 days were legal limbo: there is no compulsion to spend, but began the period where Comptroller General was empowered (but did not act) to say “get on with it or I’ll sue”. CG having not moved, and spending having commenced, the delay is not legally problematic.
There is no problem. The alleged accusation is little more than the law stating “well get on with it already”, nothing actionable beyond allowing the unused power to increase pressure on the Executive to spend as directed.
They are ok with the democrats taking massive bribes.