GAO rules Trump broke the law

[BluesLegend]

Biden bragged about it on video fool here this is for you

You think it’s against the law to threaten to withhold aid?

According to you people only if a Republican does it, perfectly fine for a Democrat to do this.

Trump did more than threaten to withhold aid.

Meh, the old Dem double standard we get it.

No. You're just not paying attention.

One person threatened to withhold aid.

One person actually did withhold aid.

One person received quid pro quo after issuing a threat, Joe Biden.

 

[Rambunctious]

So being president is now illegal?....its up to the commander and chief to determine if our tax dollars we send to other nations will be used in a non corrupt fashion....OMB?...don't make us laugh...no one votes for the OMB....

Seriously, the GAO has been looking the other way on waste fraud and abuse for decades and now on the eve of the Senate trial for removal of President Trump they leap into action. Things that make you go hmmmmm

They were asked for a ruling by Sen. Van Hollen months ago.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).
OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. Id., at 9.
OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986. However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts.
Furthermore, at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic.
The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

What did the OMB and the GAO say about Hunter Biden and Pelosi's son traveling to the Ukraine to grab bundles of cash?....nothing...not one word...until these people show that they are unbiased they will be laughed at every time they pop up....

 

[colfax_m]

You think it’s against the law to threaten to withhold aid?

According to you people only if a Republican does it, perfectly fine for a Democrat to do this.

Trump did more than threaten to withhold aid.

Meh, the old Dem double standard we get it.

No. You're just not paying attention.

One person threatened to withhold aid.

One person actually did withhold aid.

One person received quid pro quo after issuing a threat, Joe Biden.

What does that have to do with the impoundment act?

 

[colfax_m]

So being president is now illegal?....its up to the commander and chief to determine if our tax dollars we send to other nations will be used in a non corrupt fashion....OMB?...don't make us laugh...no one votes for the OMB....

Seriously, the GAO has been looking the other way on waste fraud and abuse for decades and now on the eve of the Senate trial for removal of President Trump they leap into action. Things that make you go hmmmmm

They were asked for a ruling by Sen. Van Hollen months ago.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).
OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. Id., at 9.
OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986. However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts.
Furthermore, at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic.
The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

What did the OMB and the GAO say about Hunter Biden and Pelosi's son traveling to the Ukraine to grab bundles of cash?....nothing...not one word...until these people show that they are unbiased they will be laughed at every time they pop up....

What the hell does Hunter Biden have to do with the OMB and GAO? He’s a private citizen.

I swear, you guys sound dumber and dumber the longer this goes on.

 

[Rambunctious]

So being president is now illegal?....its up to the commander and chief to determine if our tax dollars we send to other nations will be used in a non corrupt fashion....OMB?...don't make us laugh...no one votes for the OMB....

Seriously, the GAO has been looking the other way on waste fraud and abuse for decades and now on the eve of the Senate trial for removal of President Trump they leap into action. Things that make you go hmmmmm

They were asked for a ruling by Sen. Van Hollen months ago.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).
OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. Id., at 9.
OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986. However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts.
Furthermore, at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic.
The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

What did the OMB and the GAO say about Hunter Biden and Pelosi's son traveling to the Ukraine to grab bundles of cash?....nothing...not one word...until these people show that they are unbiased they will be laughed at every time they pop up....

What the hell does Hunter Biden have to do with the OMB and GAO? He’s a private citizen.

I swear, you guys sound dumber and dumber the longer this goes on.

If those committees want to be taken seriously they will have to be even handed in their projections...

 

[colfax_m]

So being president is now illegal?....its up to the commander and chief to determine if our tax dollars we send to other nations will be used in a non corrupt fashion....OMB?...don't make us laugh...no one votes for the OMB....

Seriously, the GAO has been looking the other way on waste fraud and abuse for decades and now on the eve of the Senate trial for removal of President Trump they leap into action. Things that make you go hmmmmm

They were asked for a ruling by Sen. Van Hollen months ago.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).
OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. Id., at 9.
OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986. However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts.
Furthermore, at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic.
The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

What did the OMB and the GAO say about Hunter Biden and Pelosi's son traveling to the Ukraine to grab bundles of cash?....nothing...not one word...until these people show that they are unbiased they will be laughed at every time they pop up....

What the hell does Hunter Biden have to do with the OMB and GAO? He’s a private citizen.

I swear, you guys sound dumber and dumber the longer this goes on.

If those committees want to be taken seriously they will have to be even handed in their projections...

GAO is the government accountability office. They have nothing to do with private individuals. The OMB is office of management of the budget. They don’t have anything to say about Hunter Biden because they deal with the function of the government and Hunter Biden isn’t in government.

 

[bendog]

So being president is now illegal?....its up to the commander and chief to determine if our tax dollars we send to other nations will be used in a non corrupt fashion....OMB?...don't make us laugh...no one votes for the OMB....

Seriously, the GAO has been looking the other way on waste fraud and abuse for decades and now on the eve of the Senate trial for removal of President Trump they leap into action. Things that make you go hmmmmm

They were asked for a ruling by Sen. Van Hollen months ago.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).
OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. Id., at 9.
OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986. However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts.
Furthermore, at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic.
The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

What did the OMB and the GAO say about Hunter Biden and Pelosi's son traveling to the Ukraine to grab bundles of cash?....nothing...not one word...until these people show that they are unbiased they will be laughed at every time they pop up....

What the hell does Hunter Biden have to do with the OMB and GAO? He’s a private citizen.

I swear, you guys sound dumber and dumber the longer this goes on.

At best his post was an attempt to deflect, at worse he's as much a moron as one could imagine. LOL

I think the GAO is correct, and Trump illegally withheld the money. But I'm not sure he could not have held up the aid until Ukraine met some standard of less corruption. The problem for the Trump crowd is, Trump's WH never made that argument until after they were accused of extortion for Trump's personal gain.

 

[bendog]

Seriously, the GAO has been looking the other way on waste fraud and abuse for decades and now on the eve of the Senate trial for removal of President Trump they leap into action. Things that make you go hmmmmm

They were asked for a ruling by Sen. Van Hollen months ago.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).
OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. Id., at 9.
OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986. However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts.
Furthermore, at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic.
The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

What did the OMB and the GAO say about Hunter Biden and Pelosi's son traveling to the Ukraine to grab bundles of cash?....nothing...not one word...until these people show that they are unbiased they will be laughed at every time they pop up....

What the hell does Hunter Biden have to do with the OMB and GAO? He’s a private citizen.

I swear, you guys sound dumber and dumber the longer this goes on.

If those committees want to be taken seriously they will have to be even handed in their projections...

GAO is the government accountability office. They have nothing to do with private individuals. The OMB is office of management of the budget. They don’t have anything to say about Hunter Biden because they deal with the function of the government and Hunter Biden isn’t in government.

So being president is now illegal?....its up to the commander and chief to determine if our tax dollars we send to other nations will be used in a non corrupt fashion....OMB?...don't make us laugh...no one votes for the OMB....

Seriously, the GAO has been looking the other way on waste fraud and abuse for decades and now on the eve of the Senate trial for removal of President Trump they leap into action. Things that make you go hmmmmm

They were asked for a ruling by Sen. Van Hollen months ago.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).
OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. Id., at 9.
OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986. However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts.
Furthermore, at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic.
The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

What did the OMB and the GAO say about Hunter Biden and Pelosi's son traveling to the Ukraine to grab bundles of cash?....nothing...not one word...until these people show that they are unbiased they will be laughed at every time they pop up....

What the hell does Hunter Biden have to do with the OMB and GAO? He’s a private citizen.

I swear, you guys sound dumber and dumber the longer this goes on.

If those committees want to be taken seriously they will have to be even handed in their projections...

Ok, he's a proven moron. LOL

 

[berg80]

A ruling from a government agency..........which would have been celebrated by Trumpette's had it gone the other way.........displays the importance of Trump having laid the groundwork for the Trumpette response. Anything like this gets labeled as coming from the non-existent "Deep State." Just as factual revelations of Trump's incompetence and corruption get dismissed as coming from the "fake news" media.

The construct he has created is very clever in its deceit. It allows any and all criticism of Trump to be neatly set aside as having no credibility..............when the opposite is true.

rulings by a govt agency usually means someone is getting fucked...i know, i seen this many a time in the 33 years i put in at the post office.....

The Post Office.
Oh My Gawd.

Hey, we all understand all you Trumpers are left with is disparagement of a well reasoned ruling by a respected government agency's legal team. It's always the same with you folks. When a judge rules against the admin you claim bias. When the media publishes a damning article it's "fake news." If a member of the FBI disagrees with something Trump does or says they're a member of the non-existent deep state.
We get it. You think Don is infallible. All cult members think their Dear leader is infallible. Guess what? He isn't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Gov’t Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze
Gov't Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, a government watchdog agency that advises Congress, concluded Thursday that the hold President Trump ordered his Office of Management and Budget to place on Ukraine military assistance violated the law.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” a GAO opinion said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The opinion outlined the reasons holds can be legally placed on congressionally authorized funding, and said the rational given for freezing the Ukraine aid did not fit within those reasons.

“The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason,” the GAO said.
....................................................................................................................
So much for the Trumper assertion Trump broke no laws.

What a joke!

 

[The Original Tree]

Lies Lies Lies. Trump with held aid to several South American Nations and it's not illegal for The Executive Branch to do so.

 

[colfax_m]

They were asked for a ruling by Sen. Van Hollen months ago.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).
OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. Id., at 9.
OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986. However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts.
Furthermore, at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic.
The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

What did the OMB and the GAO say about Hunter Biden and Pelosi's son traveling to the Ukraine to grab bundles of cash?....nothing...not one word...until these people show that they are unbiased they will be laughed at every time they pop up....

What the hell does Hunter Biden have to do with the OMB and GAO? He’s a private citizen.

I swear, you guys sound dumber and dumber the longer this goes on.

If those committees want to be taken seriously they will have to be even handed in their projections...

GAO is the government accountability office. They have nothing to do with private individuals. The OMB is office of management of the budget. They don’t have anything to say about Hunter Biden because they deal with the function of the government and Hunter Biden isn’t in government.

Seriously, the GAO has been looking the other way on waste fraud and abuse for decades and now on the eve of the Senate trial for removal of President Trump they leap into action. Things that make you go hmmmmm

They were asked for a ruling by Sen. Van Hollen months ago.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).
OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. Id., at 9.
OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986. However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts.
Furthermore, at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic.
The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

What did the OMB and the GAO say about Hunter Biden and Pelosi's son traveling to the Ukraine to grab bundles of cash?....nothing...not one word...until these people show that they are unbiased they will be laughed at every time they pop up....

What the hell does Hunter Biden have to do with the OMB and GAO? He’s a private citizen.

I swear, you guys sound dumber and dumber the longer this goes on.

If those committees want to be taken seriously they will have to be even handed in their projections...

Ok, he's a proven moron. LOL

It’s better when these guys just parrot what they are told. When they think for themselves, it’s a train wreck.

 

[berg80]

So being president is now illegal?....its up to the commander and chief to determine if our tax dollars we send to other nations will be used in a non corrupt fashion....OMB?...don't make us laugh...no one votes for the OMB....

Seriously, the GAO has been looking the other way on waste fraud and abuse for decades and now on the eve of the Senate trial for removal of President Trump they leap into action. Things that make you go hmmmmm

They were asked for a ruling by Sen. Van Hollen months ago.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).
OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. Id., at 9.
OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986. However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts.
Furthermore, at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic.
The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

What did the OMB and the GAO say about Hunter Biden and Pelosi's son traveling to the Ukraine to grab bundles of cash?....nothing...not one word...until these people show that they are unbiased they will be laughed at every time they pop up....

What the hell does Hunter Biden have to do with the OMB and GAO? He’s a private citizen.

I swear, you guys sound dumber and dumber the longer this goes on.

At best his post was an attempt to deflect, at worse he's as much a moron as one could imagine. LOL

I think the GAO is correct, and Trump illegally withheld the money. But I'm not sure he could not have held up the aid until Ukraine met some standard of less corruption. The problem for the Trump crowd is, Trump's WH never made that argument until after they were accused of extortion for Trump's personal gain.

Pentagon Letter Undercuts Trump Assertion On Delaying Aid To Ukraine Over Corruption
Pentagon Letter Undercuts Trump Assertion On Delaying Aid To Ukraine Over Corruption

 

[Billiejeens]

A ruling from a government agency..........which would have been celebrated by Trumpette's had it gone the other way.........displays the importance of Trump having laid the groundwork for the Trumpette response. Anything like this gets labeled as coming from the non-existent "Deep State." Just as factual revelations of Trump's incompetence and corruption get dismissed as coming from the "fake news" media.

The construct he has created is very clever in its deceit. It allows any and all criticism of Trump to be neatly set aside as having no credibility..............when the opposite is true.

rulings by a govt agency usually means someone is getting fucked...i know, i seen this many a time in the 33 years i put in at the post office.....

The Post Office.
Oh My Gawd.

Hey, we all understand all you Trumpers are left with is disparagement of a well reasoned ruling by a respected government agency's legal team. It's always the same with you folks. When a judge rules against the admin you claim bias. When the media publishes a damning article it's "fake news." If a member of the FBI disagrees with something Trump does or says they're a member of the non-existent deep state.
We get it. You think Don is infallible. All cult members think their Dear leader is infallible. Guess what? He isn't.

He is, and shall remain President
Stuff that up your ass.

 

[berg80]

A ruling from a government agency..........which would have been celebrated by Trumpette's had it gone the other way.........displays the importance of Trump having laid the groundwork for the Trumpette response. Anything like this gets labeled as coming from the non-existent "Deep State." Just as factual revelations of Trump's incompetence and corruption get dismissed as coming from the "fake news" media.

The construct he has created is very clever in its deceit. It allows any and all criticism of Trump to be neatly set aside as having no credibility..............when the opposite is true.

rulings by a govt agency usually means someone is getting fucked...i know, i seen this many a time in the 33 years i put in at the post office.....

The Post Office.
Oh My Gawd.

Hey, we all understand all you Trumpers are left with is disparagement of a well reasoned ruling by a respected government agency's legal team. It's always the same with you folks. When a judge rules against the admin you claim bias. When the media publishes a damning article it's "fake news." If a member of the FBI disagrees with something Trump does or says they're a member of the non-existent deep state.
We get it. You think Don is infallible. All cult members think their Dear leader is infallible. Guess what? He isn't.

He is, and shall remain President
Stuff that up your ass.

So..........your inability to provide any evidence of his innocence leads you to point out the duplicity of Senate Repubs ignoring the overwhelming........increasing by the day............evidence of his guilt? How sad.

 

[2aguy]

Gov’t Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze
Gov't Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, a government watchdog agency that advises Congress, concluded Thursday that the hold President Trump ordered his Office of Management and Budget to place on Ukraine military assistance violated the law.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” a GAO opinion said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The opinion outlined the reasons holds can be legally placed on congressionally authorized funding, and said the rational given for freezing the Ukraine aid did not fit within those reasons.

“The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason,” the GAO said.
....................................................................................................................
So much for the Trumper assertion Trump broke no laws.

Sorry to ruin your thread...not....This thread has failed to achieve left wing Trump impeachment orgasm....

GAO: Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act in hold on Ukraine aid

Read the whole report, however, and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle:
-------

The GAO also argues that those decisions have to be based on “programmatic” issues rather than policy decisions, which they mean temporary issues with the programs and processes themselves rather than policy opposition to them. That, however, is not found in the text of the ICA; in fact, it doesn’t place any effective limitation on the reason for such rescissions, emphasis mine:
-----

In this case, the money did get spent within the budget year. The aid may not have gone out as quickly as Congress intended or as the administration first planned, but as long as it got spent, there’s no violation. And contra the GAO’s take, delays for non-programmatic reasons don’t violate the ICA as long as it doesn’t go past the same fiscal year as the appropriation.

Even if it did, though, Congress proposed the remedy for such failures within the ICA itself, as I noted last month when the issue first got raised. The remedy is to sue the administration to force it to spend the funds, not to criminally prosecute the president over it, emphases mine:
-----

Under the agreement of both the executive and legislative branches in 1974, this is a civil matter, not a “high crime or misdemeanor.” It’s an absurdly picayune basis for removing an elected president, the head of a co-equal branch of government.

 

[2aguy]

A ruling from a government agency..........which would have been celebrated by Trumpette's had it gone the other way.........displays the importance of Trump having laid the groundwork for the Trumpette response. Anything like this gets labeled as coming from the non-existent "Deep State." Just as factual revelations of Trump's incompetence and corruption get dismissed as coming from the "fake news" media.

The construct he has created is very clever in its deceit. It allows any and all criticism of Trump to be neatly set aside as having no credibility..............when the opposite is true.

rulings by a govt agency usually means someone is getting fucked...i know, i seen this many a time in the 33 years i put in at the post office.....

The Post Office.
Oh My Gawd.

Hey, we all understand all you Trumpers are left with is disparagement of a well reasoned ruling by a respected government agency's legal team. It's always the same with you folks. When a judge rules against the admin you claim bias. When the media publishes a damning article it's "fake news." If a member of the FBI disagrees with something Trump does or says they're a member of the non-existent deep state.
We get it. You think Don is infallible. All cult members think their Dear leader is infallible. Guess what? He isn't.

He is, and shall remain President
Stuff that up your ass.

So..........your inability to provide any evidence of his innocence leads you to point out the duplicity of Senate Repubs ignoring the overwhelming........increasing by the day............evidence of his guilt? How sad.

Here, his innocence...



GAO: Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act in hold on Ukraine aid

Read the whole report, however, and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle:
-------

The GAO also argues that those decisions have to be based on “programmatic” issues rather than policy decisions, which they mean temporary issues with the programs and processes themselves rather than policy opposition to them. That, however, is not found in the text of the ICA; in fact, it doesn’t place any effective limitation on the reason for such rescissions, emphasis mine:
-----

In this case, the money did get spent within the budget year. The aid may not have gone out as quickly as Congress intended or as the administration first planned, but as long as it got spent, there’s no violation. And contra the GAO’s take, delays for non-programmatic reasons don’t violate the ICA as long as it doesn’t go past the same fiscal year as the appropriation.

Even if it did, though, Congress proposed the remedy for such failures within the ICA itself, as I noted last month when the issue first got raised. The remedy is to sue the administration to force it to spend the funds, not to criminally prosecute the president over it, emphases mine:
-----

Under the agreement of both the executive and legislative branches in 1974, this is a civil matter, not a “high crime or misdemeanor.” It’s an absurdly picayune basis for removing an elected president, the head of a co-equal branch of government.

 

[berg80]

Gov’t Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze
Gov't Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, a government watchdog agency that advises Congress, concluded Thursday that the hold President Trump ordered his Office of Management and Budget to place on Ukraine military assistance violated the law.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” a GAO opinion said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The opinion outlined the reasons holds can be legally placed on congressionally authorized funding, and said the rational given for freezing the Ukraine aid did not fit within those reasons.

“The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason,” the GAO said.
....................................................................................................................
So much for the Trumper assertion Trump broke no laws.

Sorry to ruin your thread...not....This thread has failed to achieve left wing Trump impeachment orgasm....

GAO: Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act in hold on Ukraine aid

Read the whole report, however, and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle:
-------

The GAO also argues that those decisions have to be based on “programmatic” issues rather than policy decisions, which they mean temporary issues with the programs and processes themselves rather than policy opposition to them. That, however, is not found in the text of the ICA; in fact, it doesn’t place any effective limitation on the reason for such rescissions, emphasis mine:
-----

In this case, the money did get spent within the budget year. The aid may not have gone out as quickly as Congress intended or as the administration first planned, but as long as it got spent, there’s no violation. And contra the GAO’s take, delays for non-programmatic reasons don’t violate the ICA as long as it doesn’t go past the same fiscal year as the appropriation.

Even if it did, though, Congress proposed the remedy for such failures within the ICA itself, as I noted last month when the issue first got raised. The remedy is to sue the administration to force it to spend the funds, not to criminally prosecute the president over it, emphases mine:
-----

Under the agreement of both the executive and legislative branches in 1974, this is a civil matter, not a “high crime or misdemeanor.” It’s an absurdly picayune basis for removing an elected president, the head of a co-equal branch of government.

OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. Id., at 9.
OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986. However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts.
Furthermore, at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic.
The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

 

[there4eyeM]

The present bar for such political activities was set so low so long ago that there is little hope of getting out of the current situation as other than an even further divided nation.

 

[Indeependent]

Gov’t Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze
Gov't Watchdog Office: OMB Broke Law With Trump-Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, a government watchdog agency that advises Congress, concluded Thursday that the hold President Trump ordered his Office of Management and Budget to place on Ukraine military assistance violated the law.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” a GAO opinion said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The opinion outlined the reasons holds can be legally placed on congressionally authorized funding, and said the rational given for freezing the Ukraine aid did not fit within those reasons.

“The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason,” the GAO said.
....................................................................................................................
So much for the Trumper assertion Trump broke no laws.

Did you miss the phrase “The opinion”?
You are amazingly stupid.