GAO says Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
Category: News & Politics
Via: tessylo • 4 years ago • 142 commentsBy: Tyler Olsen, Fox News
GAO says Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid
Nancy Pelosi says Trump will be ‘impeached forever’
Fox News’ Kevin Corke reports on the latest news on the Trump impeachment battle.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a legal opinion on Thursday saying that President Trump's administration broke the law by withholding defense aid to Ukraine — the issue at the heart of the president's impeachment trial .
That money, $214 million which had been allocated to the Department of Defense for security assistance, was appropriated by Congress and therefore the administration did not have the right to hold it back just because it disagreed with its allocation, the opinion from the nonpartisan government watchdog said.
"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the opinion said. "[The Office of Management and Budget] OMB withheld funds for a policy reason ... not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that the OMB violated the ICA [Impoundment Control Act]."
The OMB made clear Thursday, however, that it disagreed with the GAO report.
“We disagree with GAO's opinion," OMB spokesperson Rachel Semmel said. "OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law."
Further, a senior administration official said to Fox News that they believed the GAO was trying to insert itself into impeachment at a time when media attention on the matter is high.
"GAO’s findings are a pretty clear overreach as they attempt to insert themselves into the media’s controversy of the day. Further, GAO has a history of the flip-flops, reversing 40-years of precedent this year on their pocket rescission decision, they were also forced to reverse a legally faulty opinion when they opposed the reimbursement of federal employee travel costs. In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they’ll have to reverse their opinion again.”
The aid was later released to Ukraine after a now-famous whistleblower complaint was filed and after the fact it was being withheld was made public.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., responded to the GAO's report Thursday morning with a statement re-upping his demand that the Senate consider additional documents as evidence in the upcoming impeachment trial.
“The GAO opinion makes clear that the documents we requested in our letter last month are even more needed now because GAO confirmed the president broke the law," Schumer said. “All senators will get a chance to vote to obtain these documents next week.”
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, said in a statement that she was concerned the Trump administration usurped Congress' constitutional authority.
“Today’s report is extremely troubling because it documents in great detail President Trump’s belief that he is above the law and his utter contempt for Congress as a co-equal branch of government," she wrote.
The Trump administration, through the OMB, withheld a total of about $400 million of security assistance from Ukraine last summer. This came after Trump asked Ukrainian President Voldomyr Zelensky to investigate the family of his 2020 rival, Joe Biden, and while the White House allegedly was withholding an Oval Office visit from Zelensky in exchange for that investigation.
These actions are what fueled the impeachment effort against Trump, whose trial technically gets underway Thursday and moves into full swing next week.
The $214 million the GAO says was illegally withheld was allocated to the Department of Defense, while the rest was allocated to the State Department. The legal opinion said the GAO also had questions about the money from State, and that it was looking into whether that, "withholding was proper."
"The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation," the opinion said. "Instead, Congress has vested the President with strictly circumscribed authority to impound, or withhold, budget authority only in limited circumstances as expressly provided in the ICA."
The opinion raised further constitutional concerns about the lack of cooperation from the Trump and his executive branch officials with the GAO's investigation. The opinion's conclusion panned "a reluctance to provide a fulsome response," on the part of the OMB and the State Department, which the opinion's author, GAO General Counsel Thomas H. Armstrong, said interfered with the GAO's oversight role on behalf of Congress.
"GAO's role under the ICA – to provide information and legal analysis to Congress as it performs its oversight of executive activity – is essential to ensuring respect for and allegiance to Congress' constitutional power of the purse," he wrote.
"The President has narrow, limited authority to withhold appropriations under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974," Armstrong continued in a separate press statement. "OMB told GAO that it withheld the funds to ensure that they were not spent 'in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.' The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons."
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a legal opinion on Thursday saying that President Trump's administration broke the law by withholding defense aid to Ukraine — the issue at the heart of the president's impeachment trial .
That money, $214 million which had been allocated to the Department of Defense for security assistance, was appropriated by Congress and therefore the administration did not have the right to hold it back just because it disagreed with its allocation, the opinion from the nonpartisan government watchdog said.
"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the opinion said. "[The Office of Management and Budget] OMB withheld funds for a policy reason ... not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that the OMB violated the ICA [Impoundment Control Act]."
Further, a senior administration official said to Fox News that they believed the GAO was trying to insert itself into impeachment at a time when media attention on the matter is high.
"GAO’s findings are a pretty clear overreach as they attempt to insert themselves into the media’s controversy of the day. Further, GAO has a history of the flip-flops, reversing 40-years of precedent this year on their pocket rescission decision, they were also forced to reverse a legally faulty opinion when they opposed the reimbursement of federal employee travel costs. In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they’ll have to reverse their opinion again.”
You've got another nothing burger here....their opinion doesn't count, and they are not a party to the impeachment process.
So you are basing your opinion on the opinion of an anonymous 'senior administration official'. That's a sad example of gaslighting by Trump minions.
No. He's basing his opinion on the opinion of an anonymous 'senior administration official's "maybe".
"maybe they’ll have to reverse their opinion again".
No different than what many of the [Deleted] do. Guess you're all for the double standard.
Your whataboutism is noted.
What double standard is that Jeremy?
I for one believe that we are all individually responsible for what we beleive and disseminate. I also believe when someone disseminates bullshit here on NT, it should be called out.
That would require being down the middle. That doesn't exist on NT. I'd venture a guess that about 60% of the people here are laying on their left.
Neither disseminating bullshit or calling it out requires being down the middle.
Relevance?
It means you would be busy.
Is that why you get called out so frequently?
Do I?
I don't keep count. That must keep you busy...
How so and how would that make it relevant?
Without a doubt! So very well said and right on. That’s the way it is here.
The time for a President to withhold foreign aid that is appropriated by Congress is BEFORE HE SIGNS THE BUDGET.
I have given up on the Senate doing the right thing. The republicans will ignore all of the proof and find Trump innocent.
Lets see, 1st there was "proof" of collusion with Russia. Then there was "proof" of Quid Pro Quo. And thanks to democrat "investigations" those both fell through. And now we have "proof" of obstruction of congress and abuse of power amounting to nothing more than "Trump beat us and we can't handle it".
There still is.
One need only listen and read Trump's own words.
Neither 'fell though'.
Only someone who hasn't read the Impeachment Inquiry report could make such a ridiculous comment.
Yeah, no there isn't.
No. When you look at everything else the Democrats have thrown at the President and the results, that is exactly how these "charges" are.
And I did forget about the instance in the seeded article. The Ukraine did get their aid. And it didn't equate to firing somebody investigating a politicians son. (you know, quid pro quo)
The Mueller report documents collusion between his campaign and Russians. You should read it.
You're obviously speaking from a position of ignorance of the content of the report and you have no intention of correcting that shortfall.
Actually they didn't Jeremy. Another uninformed comment that could be have been avoided by pursuing the facts rather than accepting the gaslighting from Trump.
It actually took an act of Congress for the full amount of the 2019 appropriation to be obligated to Ukraine Military aid. The evidence for this FACT is documented and available for anyone curious enough to understand the issue with cogency rather than regurgitating Trump propaganda.
That didn't happen Jeremy. Get educated.
I'm heading out soon for a dental appointment.
Be good!
Rinse and spit.
I usually scream and writhe.
I was writhing much of the time, you got that right!
The GAO "Opinion" reputation:
Bush = 3 no,no's.
Obama = 7 no,no's.
Trump = 1 no,no.
facts are a burden to others... LOL
But one is an impeachable offense if an R does it but seven is not too much of a D does it. The progressive way.
Of course he broke the law and his supporters will still defend him...sad, really sad
What's really telling about the report is that OMB lawyers gave up trying to figure out a cogent argument to defend Trump's actions. They KNOW that their 'justification' was a non-started yet it's all they could come up with.
The emails that were released between OMB and the DOD PROVE that the DOD informed the OMB that they couldn't legally withhold the funding without documenting a reason that qualifies under the ICA. Trump removed Sandy's sign off authority and placed Duffy, a political appointee in his place. The DOJ redacted emails to cover up what Trump was doing. The unredacted emails prove that too.
But it is not a high crime or misdemeanor in the legal sense, and certainly not grounds for removal from office.
The "high crime" in a legal sense was his abuse of power. The GAO just confirmed Trump broke the letter of law in addition to his abuse of power.
"High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite." -
You've just proven that you have no clue the term 'high crime or misdemeanor' means.
ya sure about that?
Why were you not concerned when Obama broke the law?
How do you know I wasn't?
I wonder why Krauthammer didn't send his list over to Trump so he could repeal all of those 'unconstitutional' EO's on day one. Three years later and they are still in effect.
The Trump DOJ has also had three years to empanel a Grand Jury and indict Obama for any and all of the alleged crimes in your links. NADA, nothing. One would think that you would be decrying the incompetence of Trump's 'law and order' DOJ but you aren't.
It seems that it's become a GOP MO to 'announce' allegations rather than to actually address them.
And you all thought nothing of it when the same GAO called out Obama seven times for the same thing.
But, but, but Obama...nice deflection
pointing out hypocrisy is not a deflection.
using "but obama" to ignore that hypocrisy? that is the deflection.
Unless you can post some evidence for that proclamation, it's just another load you've dumped here on NT.
You should go back and review the breitbart article you got that bullshit from. Not one word about Obama violating the Impoundment Act.
FAIL.
[deleted]
Exactly whole statement well said and right on.
The GAO said Obama broke the law.
Remember the Democratic rush to impeach him?
Neither do I.
That is false.
The GAO said the DOD 'broke the law'.
Try harder.
That's right.
The DOD wasn't part of the Obama administration. The commander in chief isn't responsible for the DoD. I'm sure Obama had no idea the Bergdahl exchange even took place.
He was just an innocent bystander, surprised by the whole thing.
You didn't say the 'Obama administration' broke the law though, did you Sean?
By YOUR standard, Trump is unequivocally guilty of violating the ICA.
Obama was responsible for the Bergdahl swap. If you want to embarrass yourself by claiming otherwise, I can't stop you.
Since I'm not the one making unfounded and unsubstantiated proclamations, I have no reason to be embarrassed.
True, and it was a good swap because then we could prosecute his traitorous ass. But since ya went down that road. Bush released over 500 terrorists and what did we get in return? Nothing. At least with Obama, we got SOMETHING for the 5 low level terrorists we exchanged.
This is not about President Obama ferchrissakes
Yeah, but......
He apparently broke the law as president, so discussing his failures is relevant.
The deflection is strong with the left.
it’s all they got!
If you are basing your assertion on Sean's comment, you should recognize that it's false.
I didn’t see a Republican attempt to do so either. More evidence that impeachment was automatic the day the Dems regained control of the House. It’s been Their only objective since that day. This is nothing more than a political impeachment due to nothing more than raw majority power based on no real high crime or misdemeanor
Yeah. They have a long and embarrassing record of doing that. No one ever thought their opinion was grounds for impeachment until Trump.
What other GAO legal opinion documented that a president ordered an executive branch agency to intentionally violate a law that was specifically written to preclude the president from giving those orders?
Hey if you think there’s a case to be made, go for it. List the historical opinions and show how they are different from the current one and provide a legal analysis as to why those differences are pertinent. I look forward to the results of your research.
Can't support your claims. Got ya.
Dip into your bag of clichés for a different one. I didn’t make a claim.
Meanwhile, you want me to differentiate this event from previous ones, making the implicit claim that there is an important difference or differences we should all consider. You have been invited to prove it and deflected.
You sure as hell DID make the claim that the GAO has an 'embarrassing record'.
Actually NO Tacos!. I differentiated the GAO's decision on the Ukraine funding with this:
First of all, I am talking to YOU. There is no 'we' making a claim, there is only YOU.
I invited you to cite any other decision, in the GAO's 'embarrassing record', that rules that a specific president so overtly violating such a law.
I am relying on the GAO report on Trump withholding the Ukraine funding. Rather than posting an unfounded kneejerk response, I did do my due diligence and review some other decisions about the Impoundment act.
The recent decisions about the question put to the GAO all follow the same line of argument. The Congress specifically precluded the President from impounding funds without notice and authorization of Congress.
Interestingly, one of those recent decisions was requested by Rep. Steve Womack, who can't claim that he didn't know what Trump did was illegal, yet he voted against impeachment.
Since YOU made the allegation that they have an 'embarrassing record', it is your burden to prove it, not mine.
.
That’s an opinion, not a claim. So, it doesn’t require “proof.” Go sea lion someone else.
You obviously don't understand the term sealioning.
YOU are the one demanding proof for which you have no sincere desire.
Nope. Haven't demanded anything from you. Could not care less. Just invited you to flesh out your own point. If you don't want you, I'm sure we'll all be happier for one less post of nonsense.
Well at least you didn't try to pretend that you were sincere.
Uh huh. Are you looking for fish?
No.
The fix or the skate is in. Trump has Dershowitz and Starr on his defense team. Seeing as how Trump will never go under oath and the impeachment proceedings are not about sex the Trump is free and clear.
Besides, the republicans don't give a whit about law when it comes to Trump. Something is happening. Something very un-American. The Constitution be damned.
Ya, Starr was fired when he was president of Baylor University for protecting football players accused of sexual assault, (numerous cases).
Dershowitz is a pedophile who defended pedophile Epstein. He also defended OJ Simpson and was an adviser to Harvey Weinstein.
Pam Bondi, as Attorney General in Florida declined to act against trump when litigants sued his "university". This was after trump foundation donated $25,000 to her campaign (she's a cheap date, for a little more she'd probably toss his salad.)
What a team !!!
I heard Dershowitz say he was, "A liberal democrat," twice on the TV today. What ever that has to do with anything. Has Dershowitz taken one to may rides on the lysergic acid diethylamide train?
Has Dershowitz taken one to may rides on the lysergic acid diethylamide train?
Who knows ?
Whatever his politics are he's a scum bag.
Yep, all true. And all the while trump was screaming that the Clinton Foundation was corrupt. Trump has a habit of accusing others of what he is guilty of. During the campaign and through his election, it became a running joke that if trump accused someone of something, you could be DAMN sure he had done the same thing.
Like you pointed out above. Trump kept saying, "Pay for Play Hillary!!!". About a month later it was found that trump used his, "charity" to pay off Bondi and...the AG of texas, (pay for play), forget who it was, all to drop their respective Trump U cases. Undoubtedly because trump knew he was going to have to settle and wanted to mitigate the damage by excluding a couple of states.
Yea, as soon as the accusations start to fly, they suddenly turn into democrats. Had there been no accusations, fox would be screaming that he is the greatest conservative ever. He used to be on CNN from time to time, but to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't been on there in a couple of years.
Showing my age, I had to look that one up.
The swamp is deep in this administration, very, very deep.
Actually, concerning Trump, there are few accusations----but there are mounds of evidence. Which in itself is amazing since Trump blocks witnesses, documents and for his own part will not/can not testify under oath to prove his innocence.
Yowzers! lol
Yep. Former GOP rep Chris Collins just got 26 months for fraud and other things.
When the Trump says he wants to, "Drain the Swamp," he is referring to truth and justice under the law. And the Trumpers, they're just lost in the flotsam created by the cult of oligarch billionaires.
They have no evidence. It's just another smear [Deleted]
You mean like Steyer, Bloomberg, Soros, Bezos, and the rest of tech world. And the Oracle of Omaha and the wall st banksters who sold out the working class , the middle class and the Heartland?
The political and media left have smearing Christians, conservatives, and newer media down to a so called SPLC based fact checking science. It’s what they do and who they are as people
I am not sure how you can say all those names together and say that they sold out anyone. Most of them came from humble beginnings and are a testimony to the American Dream. You can't just list rich people and say they are all the same. It just isn't the truth.
Don't you think the president should be given the very best of legal advice, given the fake nature of the charges, and forgetting that a sitting president has special powers and privileges.
Okay. Given 'the fake nature' of the charges, Trump has every right to testify under oath and to provide evidence through documents, witnesses or other legal instruments to prove his case.
Trump has no obligation to prove anything to anyone. He holds the presumption of innocence and it is up to Nancy’s gang of thug persecutors to prove any Trump guilt if any is to be proved to the Chief Justice judge and 2/3 of the US Senate jury jurors. Without 67 votes you have nothing.
So tell us what is unconstitutional about these proceedings?
Nothing is unconstitutional with these proceedings.
When did Lev Parnas become an official of the United States government?
That is a question Giuliani should clarify.
Lev Parnas should be capable of clarifying when he became a government official, too. I don't recall Parnas making any such claim.
Parnas appears to have been doing what Christopher Steele did.
No. Parnas said he was working under the direction and the authority of Giuliani---who allegedly was working under the direction and authority of the president.
Personally, I think Giuliani is------------over stating himself and detrimental to the president's defense.
Christopher Steel merely gleaned information from other foreign services including MI6. Little of it has been investigated and most of it has not been disproven or proven. The most concerning allegations in The Steel Dossier were connections between certain Americans and individuals connected with Trump, the Trump campaign and Russians. Documents to prove or disprove the allegations are still being withheld. Besides, Steel was contracted first by republican operatives against Trump. When their efforts did not make a difference other picked up the ball. To this day nothing in the Steel Dossier has been investigated to either prove or disprove the findings. It is in limbo and it is also still out there.
Americans and individuals connected with Trump, the Trump campaign and Russians. Documents to prove or disprove the allegations are still being withheld. Besides, Steel was contracted first by republican operatives against Trump.
Wow!
so much misinformation in so few sentences. everything you wrote it simply wrong, and given the mueller and IG reports you have no excuse for it.
its not even worth the effort of correcting at this point.
Christopher Steele also actively attempted to coax the FBI, State Dept., and intelligence agencies to investigate members of the Trump campaign and Donald Trump. Steele engaged in the same sorts of activities as Parnas. Steele directed his attention toward the US government; Parnas directed his attention toward the Ukrainian government. And there were other Democratic Party operatives working in Ukraine as well. Circumstantially it appears some of those Democratic operatives were receiving assistance from the US embassy.
Christopher Steele was successful in his efforts to obtain an investigation of a Democratic political opponent. Parnas was not successful with the Ukrainian government. It appears that the Ukrainian government is smarter than the average FBI director.
Except it isn't. [Deleted]
[DeletedI] guess spreading false information intentionally is a better look for you than if you actually believe what you wrote. That would be embarrassing!
Your post is living proof that fake news persists even after it's been thoroughly debunked.
Ask you again----person. What lies?
Absolutely true. Because there were------odd things----inconsistencies-----that should be examined, especially concerning a person running for a high office.
And no. Steel and MI6 did not operate in the same manner as Parnas or Giuliani. What are you protecting?
Since you can't actually provide any evidence to support your imaginary claims, I'll try and make this as simple as possible. I'll start with an easy one.
Steele was not first hired by Republicans.
That's false. Once you admit that, I'll point out the next falsehood.
I'm not going to waste my time if you will persist in ignorance.
Steele gave his findings to the FBI. Your allegations are unfounded.
That is utterly false. Parnas gained access to Ukrainian officials through Giuliani via Trumps. Steel garnered his information independently.
Steele's attention was on Trump who was NOT in the government at the time. Get your facts straight Nerm.
It wasn't 'his attention' Nerm, it was Trump's attention via Giuliani.
Ohh, tell me all about that conspiracy theory...
Steele did a solid for the US by reporting a national security threat to the FBI Nerm.
Neither was Trump.
Well since this all happened while Wray, Trump's hand picked FBI Director, was in charge, it's Trump's fault right?
BTW, since Ukraine asked the US to make a FORMAL request for an investigation to be instituted in their country, yes, Ukraine's government WAS smarter than Trump.
Everything you said is false. Everything. You are forever ubiquitous.
Sad you didn’t even bother to try and support your made up stories. That would have been funny to see.
Forever ubiquitous.
Besides, its way past time for you to prove something. But you can't. If you could you would have already.
You are wrong. GOP operatives were the ones that contacted and contracted Steel to glean foreign intel on Trump. Prove that wrong.
Americans and individuals connected with Trump, the Trump campaign and Russians. Documents to prove or disprove the allegations are still being withheld. Besides, Steel was contracted first by republican operatives against Trump.
Wow!
so much misinformation in so few sentences. everything you wrote it simply wrong, and given the mueller and IG reports you have no excuse for it.
, its way past time for you to prove something.
You are the one who can't support your arguments, not me. Not any proof to support anyone of your falsehoods (granted you can't support what you made up, but I'm hoping you's try).
ones that contacted and contracted Steel to glean foreign intel on Trump. Prove that wrong.
You are the one who is supposed to actually prove your claim. But I know you can't, and you know you can't. Because it's very easy to look this up.
The Free Beacon project compiling publicly available data on Trump and other candidates ended in April 2016. The DNC/Clinton hired Steele in June 2016. The Washington Post even spelled it out in picture form for to help the easily confused.
The sad part is, some progressives will continue with their falsehoods no matter how many times they are exposed to the truth. Two weeks from now, the same argument will take place.
No. Everything falls on you. The Free Beacon report is false with intent.
Is that supposed to be English?
I've provided proof from the Washington Post, a liberal source. At this point, sticking with gibberish might be your best option, because reality is against you.