GAO decision, withholding Ukraine aid was illegal

[Kyle]

Chrissy seems like he needs a cigarette!

 

[BOP]

Its their legal opinion, if you want to call it an opinion.

having said that, I already explained what the law says, it says the funds should be delivered when the DOD says it’s appropriate. That date had passed several times over.

You went on a stupid rant about how this proves I am a never trumper who will grasp onto any story to make my case. This is the GAO, If they aren’t partisan then their report is a nonpartisan finding by the governments internal watchdog. How can you continue to ignore it and make excuses?

I know that your last remains brain cell is inundated with orange cool aid, but trump was impeached for this Already. His trial is starting in the senate right now. The charges have already been filed and delivered to Mitch and company.

OMB Pushes Back On GAO’s Finding That Withholding Ukraine Aid Was Illegal

The Office of Management and Budget is pushing back on a GAO finding that the Trump administration acted illegally by withholding Ukraine aid.

dailycaller.com

However, OMB is standing by its authority to withhold the funds.

“We disagree with GAO’s opinion. OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President’s priorities and with the law,” OMB spokeswoman Rachel Semmel said.

 

[nutz]

Even slower,

No
One
Argued
That
They
Were.

No
One.

You're shifting the argument because you don't want to argue the merits that Trump broke the law. It's clearly spelled out, but you go ahead and argue with yourself.

Some of us are missing the fine point of just how the President is tied to the decision. Because he is in charge and is responsible for all or the implication that he directed policy or orangeman bad? Lets not forget the coincidence of the report being released the SAME time as the articles of impeachement (is that why Nancy waited a month). Lets also not ignore the threat to national security and the ultimate timeliness of all of these coincidences (Ukraine investigating Yovanovitch).

The dems are pulling out all of the stops to sway the election and alot of people are not even paying attention.

 

[nutz]

Chrissy seems like he needs a cigarette!

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Some of us are missing the fine point of just how the President is tied to the decision.

You mean besides it being his decision to withhold the aide?

 

[nutz]

You mean besides it being his decision to withhold the aide?

Point to the wording that says the money was withheld by order of the President.

 

[Midnightrider]

Lighten up Francis.

I didn't suggest is was a partisan decision. It very-well could be opinion based rather than rooted in actual law. All I'm saying is that if Trump broke the law, in order for this to go anywhere is for charges (either in a courtroom or in congress) to be brought up and go through the legal process. Regardless of who the person is, and their standing, they still have the right to due process; and the GAO coming out with this accusation doesn't mean a thing until it's gone through the process - something you have stated over and over again, on other issues, should play out before we jump to "He's guilty! Toss him out".

The only Cool Aid I drink is jazz music.

he is being impeached for this very issue. What other process can you possibly expect? This is just one more piece of evidence that shows how trumps actions broke the law.

Point to the wording that says the money was withheld by order of the President.

so you are just going to ignore all the testimony from OBM about how this decision flowed direct

 

[Gilligan]

I can't wait to see Hunter Biden testify in the impeachment trial.

 

[Kyle]

I can't wait to see Hunter Biden testify in the impeachment trial.

All he will do is plead the 5th. He'll never take the chance of speaking and implicating his dear ole Dad.

 

[SkylarkTempest]

I can't wait to see Hunter Biden testify in the impeachment trial.

Do you support having witnesses at the trial?

 

[Gilligan]

Do you support having witnesses at the trial?

Absolutely.

 

[SkylarkTempest]

Absolutely.

I wish McConnell was on board.

 

[Barabbas]

This sounds to me like it may be two different "due dates" that have been conflated in the reports. The date they promised the funding, and the date the money expires (which would almost certainly be tied to a fiscal year, IE Sept 30). But we may never know since those details aren't provided.

There was no date the money was promised prior to 30 September. That's kind of my point.

Any date prior to that is a nicety. The DoD declaration of no fraud or corruption in Ukraine does not start a clock of when the money is due. The only time the money was due was 30 September.

The money was issued, as I recall, on or about 9/11. According to my handy-dandy desk calendar, that's before 9/30, which is before the date it was due, thus it may have not been expeditiously given out, but it also was not (technically) delayed.

As I said, if OMB didn't authorize until 10/1, the GAO report would be filled with accurate and damning thought processes.

Do I need to capitalize, bold, italicize, and change the color of the word "if" to make the point any clearer (not to you, in general)?

 

[Kyle]

I wish McConnell was on board.

I wish Star Wars had stopped after the first three movies...

... but you don't always get what you want!

 

[Barabbas]

Even slower,

No
One
Argued
That
They
Were.

No
One.

You're shifting the argument because you don't want to argue the merits that Trump broke the law. It's clearly spelled out, but you go ahead and argue with yourself.

There do not seem to be merits that Pres. Trump broke the law. The law said to give the money by the 30th of September, and the money was given by the 30th of September. The GAO reports it could have been sooner, which is just nifty information, but not indicative of breaking the law.

The real issue to me, personally, here is that the GAO (and other "independent" auditing arms of the government) should really be almost judicial in their unbiased and trustworthy reporting on questions of following law. This is not the first GAO (or other "independent" auditing arm of government) that does not seem to do that. It begs the question as to what their point is if they are not unbiased and independent.

If this report stated that "technically, the president did not violate the law, but seemed (in our opinion) to violate the spirit or intent of the law through what we deem inappropriate stalling on meeting the legally-required deadline", then I would take it as pretty damning opinion. But, because they nuked the fridge, I read it with little more concern than a CNN Op-Ed.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Point to the wording that says the money was withheld by order of the President.

This is why you shouldn't ignore threads that paint Trump in a bad light by default.

The thread below spells it out and shows AG Barr is actively trying to hide this information from the public.

But you decided to ignore it.

More anonymous sources, hearsay and speculation. where’s your smoking gun?

https://forums.somd.com/threads/unredacted-emails-leaked.351532/

The link in that thread goes over everything. It's posted below, again, also. Be sure to reads the associated links in that as well.

OMB noted that the President’s direction via the Chief of Staff in early July was to suspend security assistance to Ukraine including by blocking the $115 [Foreign Military Financing] congressional notification and by halting execution of the $250M FY19 USAI programs.

On Aug. 29, Chewning let McCusker know:

"Sec State and Sec Def will discuss with POTUS tomorrow. We should wait on communicating anything more privately.”

On Aug. 30, after the meeting with the president took place, Duffey told McCusker,

“Clear direction from POTUS to hold.” He let her know that he’d soon be sending new paperwork extending the hold.

https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/...ts-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/

For FY 2019, Congress appropriated $250 million to the Department of Defense (DOD) for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI).1 On June 19, 2019, OMB learned that the President had asked about DOD's plans for USAI. At that time, 0MB began discussions with DOD regarding DOD's plans for obligating the USAI funds. In response to the Administration's directive that USAI funds not be obligated for Ukraine pending a policy decision

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-con...c_paoletta_to_gao_gc_armstrong-2019.12.11.pdf

This info was mentioned in more than one testimony during Impeachment hearings. Again, you didn't want to believe that either.

...I heard that the President had directed the Office of Management and Budget to hold the funds...

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-con...house-cooper_opening_statement-2019.11.20.pdf

This info is not new, either. Trump himself said he held the aide up back in September.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

There do not seem to be merits that Pres. Trump broke the law. The law said to give the money by the 30th of September, and the money was given by the 30th of September. The GAO reports it could have been sooner, which is just nifty information, but not indicative of breaking the law.

The real issue to me, personally, here is that the GAO (and other "independent" auditing arms of the government) should really be almost judicial in their unbiased and trustworthy reporting on questions of following law. This is not the first GAO (or other "independent" auditing arm of government) that does not seem to do that. It begs the question as to what their point is if they are not unbiased and independent.

If this report stated that "technically, the president did not violate the law, but seemed (in our opinion) to violate the spirit or intent of the law through what we deem inappropriate stalling on meeting the legally-required deadline", then I would take it as pretty damning opinion. But, because they nuked the fridge, I read it with little more concern than a CNN Op-Ed.

The law says the President cannot hold Congressionally-approved funds for policy reasons. Period.

It's what he did. Period.

There's a reason even OMB staffers were concerned (and even one lawyer quit because he didn't want to be involved with illegal acts).




I don't know why this is even remotely a discussion. Congress, and only Congress, is tasked with the purse. Not the President. It's an absolute tenant of our system and Constitution and it's a shame the right is simply shrugging this off as some minor stretch of power.

 

[Barabbas]

The law says the President cannot hold Congressional approved funds for policy reasons. Period.

It's what he did. Period.

He didn't hold them, they were issued. Period.

They were issued prior to the due date. Period.

See, I can talk like an ass, too. It gets us nowhere.

 

[CPUSA]

...I heard that the President had directed the Office of Management and Budget to hold the funds...

See the RED part?

THAT"S the part you should've highlighted...

 

[Chris0nllyn]

He didn't hold them, they were issued. Period.

They were issued prior to the due date. Period.

See, I can talk like an ass, too. It gets us nowhere.

It's 100% clear it was held. Nothing says a hold is only a hold if money goes past the spending deadline.

There's a reason Congress had to re-appropriate the tens of million of dollars that didn't get spent the prior year.