GAO says Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

FoxNews ^ | 1/16/2020 | Tyler Olson

[DarthVader]

Everyone was in a rush on this to get a scoop and now are going to look foolish. There is nothing here. Just recycled BS.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

The GAO is part of the judiciary? Who knew?

[ctdonath2]

Crux of debunking: NOBODY is pointing at which exact law is allegedly broken.

The Articles do not specify what law was broken.
I suspect the GAO statement does not specify (I’ll check) what law was broken.
Some people hypothesize which laws apply, but the people that matter aren’t stating them where & how it matters.

The “45 day” notion is a colloquial in-practice norm intended to ensure transgression doesn’t occur. Those involved with the spending used that as their “rule of thumb” and make d@mn sure they abided by it - ensuring they didn’t come close to an actual actionable breaking of law.

The real debunking happens when McConnell opens trial proceedings. Hopefully it will be as simple as: “there is nothing in here stating which law is allegedly broken; case dismissed with prejudice.”

[jersey117]

Yet we have Biden on tape indisputably threatening the prosecutor to drop the investigation against his son and no one bats an eye.

[Bob434]

[[I suspect the GAO statement does not specify (I’ll check) what law was broken.]]

Yeah it will be interesting to see how they couch this- what law they base it on- but unfortunate, the msm screaming ‘Trump broke the law, says the bipartisan GAO’ sounds bad to low info viewers who take CNN and ilk as gospel truth-

I hope this really backfires in their faces- and Mitcdh or lawyers use it to further prove that the left have dun nothing but cheapen the impeachment process for political gain because they can’t stand that they lost the election

[Mr. K]

So what deep state bureaucrats need to be fired over this? Since when is it the GAO’s business to chime in about legal proceedings? Was this an official request of some sort?

[Magnum44]

I am more interested in who wrote, who commissioned it, and why the report was initiated at GAO.

The timing stinks. There are no coincidences. This smells of being some back channel request from Schiff/Nadler to some dem moles in the GAO.

[Reily]

GAO is a office of the legislative branch. Congress controls them. Right now I don’t anticipate any firings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office

Works for Congress, so it tells Congress what it want sot hear!

[krogers58]

The big losers here are Delecto Murkowski Collins, Alexander and Lee. They will have to put their tails up their ass and vote against impeachment even though they really want to.

Let'em, who needs them? It's not like their votes matter, Trump's getting off. No obstruction for asserting executive privilege, and this is not an abuse of power. This kind of crap goes on all the time with politicians, and if this is now the bar for impeachment, they're all going to be thrown from office.

[TonyM]

I wish we could pick up enough more Senate seats to allow us to tell Collins, Murkowski, Lee, and a couple others to just leave the party. As long as we have 51 solid Republicans that can be counted on I am all for handing over their seats to dems for at least one term just to get rid of them.

[ctdonath2]

GAO statment here: https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

I read it.
There is much in there about delays, but comes down to this:
“The President may temporarily withhold funds from obligation—but not beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President transmits the special message—by proposing a “deferral.””
That’s the ONLY relevant bit. There is no statement of any earlier dates (other than EOY), so the issue of “temporarily withhold” really is meaningless because there is no date being affected. The indicated “deferral” extends beyond the EOY deadline, for which Congress had already extended anyway. Takes time to spend that much money, and the Executive is not obligated to explain why any delays occur so long as it is spent by EOY (or, as provided, extension). That said, Trump’s minions DID appropriately inform the occurrence of delays (not relevant to the EOY deadline), for which he is not mandated to explain; these agitated bureaucrats operating under a “act promptly, never take longer than 45 days delay” norm designed to comply with, but not perfectly match (i.e.: errs on side of prudent caution), written law.

Law explicitly allows for delay (the “45 days”) in spending, for express purpose of requesting Congress rescind the spending order. In practice, it takes time to contemplate & articulate such a delay - at end of which POTUS may decide not to after all.

Upshot: the only legal obligation is to spend the money as directed by end of fiscal year. That was done, with proper concession to a delay enacted by Congress.

Insofar as there were alleged improper delays: the law expressly states a path for handling the issue. This path was not taken, House Democrats taking the impeachment path instead - showing they were absolutely not serious about following the letter & spirit of the law.

[combat_boots]

Thanks

[Bob434]

Thanks, I kinda follow that-

in one break down (can’t remember which post) they said Schiff jumped on the issue at day 47- so apparently the money was withheld past the 45 days? Is that correct?

Second question, if correct, did the admin or whoever handles the money apply for extension?

If so they are covered and there’s no ‘there, there’

If not- then like you said the requirement is just to spend by EOY- which he did, so that covers him as well, right? but if so, how does the 45 day restriction and EOY requirement jive? Were the administration and spenders under a legal extension time allotment? (Sounds like it if I’m reading your post correctly?) (Go slow, I have ‘Fibro Fog’/ ‘Brain Fog’ big time- it sucks-)

[Antoninus]

Whoever advised Trump not to fire every last one of these Obuma holdovers should be fired immediately.

[Bob434]

I’m asking so i can try to explain to some republican friends who don’t understand it too well- I don’t understand it too well myself, Not up on all this government law stuff- Would like to simplify it for them so they don’t look at me with glazed over eyes lol-

[cranked]

GOA find that Hitlary ClintonIdiot broke the law or laws in the Uranium One scandal?

GOA is a frakin joke, a deep state rooted joke.

[ctdonath2]

Yes, the money was “held/delayed” for 48 days.

The “45 days” is precisely for asking Congress to rescind (cancel) the spending.
Whether the time begins at the start of the delay (whatever that means) or when Congress is asked to rescind the spending, is unclear in the law. Bureaucratic convention apparently assumes the former, likely to ensure no problems.

The 48 days ended without Trump asking Congress to rescind the spending. THIS is what House Democrats are jumping on.
The problem with the House Democrats jumping on a 3-day stall (past the 45) is the law explicitly states the next step is for civil suit to be (optionally) brought compelling compliance; this did not happen.

For all the babbling about dates & delays, there was nothing indicating a particular deadline for this particular spending. OMB was told to delay spending on Ukraine, several times for vague reasons, but there’s little/no meaningful difference between “don’t send the money yet” vs “we haven’t gotten around to sending the money”.

The only hard deadline is EOY, which was achieved (with Congress’ approval for an extension).

[Verginius Rufus]

The delay did no harm to Ukraine or to American interests, but may have threatened the Biden family cash flow.

[ctdonath2]

Let’s try this analogy:

You get a bill.
You have 30 days to pay it.
Your online banking is set up to pay the bill early/promptly.
You tell the bank to delay sending the money for a week.
You tell the bank to delay sending the money for another week.
You tell the bank to delay sending the money for another week.
You tell the bank to delay sending the money for another week.
You know actually sending the money will take a week, meaning it will “get there” a couple days late - but you also know the payment will be considered by postmark, so as long as it’s _sent_ before the deadline it’s acceptable.
The bank sends the payment the day before it’s due.
The bill collection agency calls you, threatening fines & foreclosures, the day after it’s due.
You tell the bill collection agency to shove off, because it was - according to rules - sent (per postmark) before the deadline.
The payment arrives.
The bill collection agency continues harassing you for not having good reason to be “late”.
You explain “it wasn’t late, and it doesn’t matter why I ‘delayed’ payment”.
You both go to arbitration, and the arbiter checks the rules & facts and says “it wasn’t late, and it doesn’t matter why he ‘delayed’ payment”.
Case closed.

[greeneyes]

Didn’t Congress also stipulate that the executive should certify that progress had been made on cleaning up corruption prior to releasing funds??

I was thinking I read that somewhere.