Posted on 01/16/2020 7:57:13 AM PST by Swordmaker
The Trump administration violated the law by withholding appropriated security assistance to Ukraine, the Government Accountability Office said Thursday in a report.
The independent watchdog said the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld the appropriated funds last summer.
The report said U.S. law “does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.”
“Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the [Impound Control Act],” GAO said.
The withholding of the aid is central to the ongoing impeachment proceedings against President Trump.
--This breaking news report will be updated.
Just as I thought. You can’t. You had to put dashes and interrupt the name with a comment. Can’t help yourself, can you? ROTFLMAO!
duckduckgo actually found it... on youtube
but i couldn’t find it using youtube search
point proved.. .
No trial or defense allowed. Guilty and straight to jail says the beaureacrats that nobody has ever heard of trying to enforce a law that nobody has ever heard of.
yup
P
more propaganda from Clowns, DS, DNC, MSM
The report said U.S. law “does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh yes it does. That law is called the “Constitution.” The president can substitute whatever policy he wants in relation to the execution and enforcement of the laws Congress passes.
So, as an example, it appears that if some government supplier made a batch of defective parts and the contracting officer declined to pay the invoice then that would be illegal. But that is an absurd interpretation of the law, and surely wrong.
The GAO report is just another example of how corrupt and partisan many parts of the government have become.
and ever last gov’t employee who does things like this should fired without their pension. The people who work with those people who said nothing should be transferred to the shyttiest post imaginable.
Good job repeating the talking point from the GAO memo. If you were paying attention in class, or ever did any business with the government, you would realize that people in the Executive Branch are responsible for doling out money from the "purse" and that they routinely exercise discretion in doing so.
If you didn't complete the job you can't expect to get the check. If the government finds out that you are, for example, a doctor filing false claims for medicare payments you don't get the check. The departments responsible for those kinds of efforts is in the Executive Branch.
Ask yourself a question. If Congress budgeted funds for a new police station in Mosul Iraq should the US government have sent the money to Mosul after it fell to ISIS? I think you know the answer is "no".
The Executive Branch has plenty of leeway to adjust the timing of payments, or even withhold them, based on its decisions that are taken as it implements the spending authorized by Congress.
The Deep State is determined to establish itself as our masters... they keep coming out of the wood work. With investigation it seems to emerge that the various efforts are all inter-connected - coordinated.
Since when it is against the law not to give foreigners our treasury? President Trump ought to make the deep state howl by immediately cancelling ALL foreign aid. Only reinstate to countries that share our national goals.
Thanks for the link!
Trump should post this to Twitter or a campaign ad!
I fu*king loathe Democrats and our lying Media!
Mick Mulvaney engineered a tactic to rescind $5 in foreign aid in 2018 to prevent a cascade of end-of-year spending by the State Department. This tactic was tried before to prevent $15 billion in aid. The tactic was to freeze the aid long enough so the aid would expire. This tells me President Trump was having Mulvaney stop this aid as a method to cut spending. If a government receiving aid was corrupt it was more reason to cut aid.
Of course, and the examples you give are considered programmatic changes necessary in order for the Executive to implement the law.
The GAO found that in this instance that wasn't the case. They said the funds were withheld for policy reasons which is prohibited by the Impoundment Control Act.
We can say the ICA is bad, stupid or unconstitutional, but for now it's the law.
I can see that
***So a bunch of Non-Partisan (but really Democrat) bureaucrats determined that President Trump, who is constitutionally in charge of Foreign Policy can be trumped by a budgetary allocation and forced to expend funds regardless of changing international situations?***
The Deep State is determined to establish itself as our masters... they keep coming out of the wood work. With investigation it seems to emerge that the various efforts are all inter-connected - coordinated.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Good points, Bob!
Good to see you back
Hope you heal quickly & completely
You are being obtuse and delusional. Our system of government with three co-equal branches does not require the President to kowtow to the policy decisions of previous Congresses, especially in Foreign Affairs.
Now about your assertion that constitutional laws must be obeyed. Not true. It’s our duty as free citizens to disobey unconstitutional laws. If a law is unconstitutional, then multiple SCOTUS rulings have established it cannot be the law. Laws that are passed which are unconstitutional should not be obeyed, because they cannot be legally enforceable, as they are in contravention of the supreme law of the land and thus tyrannical. It’s our duty to disobey them.
By the way, show me where Congress is permitted to stick its collective nose into Foreign Policy. . . especially the House of Representatives. The President is given the power to appoint ambassadors with the advice/consent of the Senate, and to receive ambassadors from foreign countries, the House can cut off funding in a budget, but that’s it. Two hundred plus years of interpretation of that section of the Constitution, tradition, common law, and statutory law, has stated the President is empowered with Foreign Affairs, not Congress.
Where does it say that an annual budgetary foreign aid appropriation statute which requires budgeted funds be expended before a statutory September 30th end of the fiscal year or go unborrowed, somehow trumps the president’s constitutional control of foreign policy?
This is just more stuck pigs howling because they’ve been stuck. The deep state swine are fearful they’re going to be turned into bacon. You should be familiar with it, you seem to squeal a lot on here.
Get them declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS and I'll be there on the barricades with you.
Two hundred plus years of interpretation of that section of the Constitution, tradition, common law, and statutory law, has stated the President is empowered with Foreign Affairs, not Congress.
Fine with me provided he doesn't spend my tax dollars without authorization or refuse to spend money that my representatives have decided should be spent.
Where does it say that an annual budgetary foreign aid appropriation statute which requires budgeted funds be expended before a statutory September 30th end of the fiscal year or go unborrowed, somehow trumps the president’s constitutional control of foreign policy?
Well, the annual budget resolution is just that, a concurrent resolution passed by Congress but not signed by the President and not made law. This resolution outlines intent, and you're right that it doesn't obligate the spending of funds.
The Defense Appropriations Act, on the other hand, is statutory, signed by Trump and has the force of law.
Now Congress realized that even though they appropriated money a President may choose not to spend it, which they deemed to be unconstitutional. To protect against this they passed, and Nixon signed into law, the Impoundment Control Act. It obligates the spending of the money unless the President comes back to Congress and requests a rescission, which he didn't in this case. The President can also temporarily defer the spending in a couple of very specific instances, neither of which come into play here.
The premise is the President is obligated by the Constitution to faithfully execute the law as passed by Congress, and as the GAO said
"...unless Congress has enacted a law providing otherwise, the President must take care to ensure that appropriations are prudently obligated during their period of availability".
As I said before, the President can determine foreign policy but Congress controls whether money is spent - or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.