Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
GAO HIT PIECE on TRUMP GETS IT WRONG
DJDuck
Member Posts: 5,970
A “BRIEF PAUSE” IS NOT WITHHOLDING NOR DEFERRAL
The GAO accuses the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of violating the Budget Control and Impoundment Act. Specifically, GAO says that the Trump Administration violated the terms of a deferral under 2 U.S. Code.§ 684.Proposed deferrals of budget authority.
President Trump is accused of “withholding” funds appropriated by Congress as a gift to Ukraine for 58 days. The Budget Control and Impoundment Act regulates some of the federal budgeting process.
Now mind you the Congress has not complied with the federal budgeting process for years. When it comes to violating the Budget Control Act, the Congress is in a stupor in a heroin den while Trump is accused of jay-walking.
The Act (among many other things) allows the Administration to cancel (rescind) a federal appropriation or to defer an expenditure. So the President does have the power to rescind or defer. But the Act does requires that the President notify Congress under 2 U.S. Code § 684 if the Administration proposes to (1) rescind an appropriation or (2) defer the spending of federal appropriations.
The GAO alleges that Trump’s OMB deferred our gift to Ukraine but didn’t notify Congress. The GAO also alleges that the OMB did not have a permissible reason for a deferral. However, the GAO also whines a lot about wanting more information. So the GAO admits (if you really read between the lines) that they don’t actually know what they are claiming. They are going with the information they have, which they admit is not enough.”
https://canadafreepress.com/article/gao-hit-piece-on-trump-gets-it-wrong
“Federal funds are never spent the day that Congress votes.
There is no deadline for the spending of federal appropriations unless explicitly specified.
There are dozens sometimes hundreds of steps required by the bureaucracy from the time that Congress votes and the President signs a spending bill until the money actually goes out the door. That’s the norm.
There can be many months or years before money is actually sent to the recipient, sometimes in installments.
The processing time by the bureaucracy is not a standard or known length of time. There is no expectation that money will go out the door at any particular time. Just because Congress appropriated funds doesn’t create any expectation for when money will get distributed (unless Congress adds a deadline).
Deferral does not mean just the processing time within the bureaucracy
Deferral is an intentional act—not we are working on it, gives us a moment.”
The GAO accuses the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of violating the Budget Control and Impoundment Act. Specifically, GAO says that the Trump Administration violated the terms of a deferral under 2 U.S. Code.§ 684.Proposed deferrals of budget authority.
President Trump is accused of “withholding” funds appropriated by Congress as a gift to Ukraine for 58 days. The Budget Control and Impoundment Act regulates some of the federal budgeting process.
Now mind you the Congress has not complied with the federal budgeting process for years. When it comes to violating the Budget Control Act, the Congress is in a stupor in a heroin den while Trump is accused of jay-walking.
The Act (among many other things) allows the Administration to cancel (rescind) a federal appropriation or to defer an expenditure. So the President does have the power to rescind or defer. But the Act does requires that the President notify Congress under 2 U.S. Code § 684 if the Administration proposes to (1) rescind an appropriation or (2) defer the spending of federal appropriations.
The GAO alleges that Trump’s OMB deferred our gift to Ukraine but didn’t notify Congress. The GAO also alleges that the OMB did not have a permissible reason for a deferral. However, the GAO also whines a lot about wanting more information. So the GAO admits (if you really read between the lines) that they don’t actually know what they are claiming. They are going with the information they have, which they admit is not enough.”
https://canadafreepress.com/article/gao-hit-piece-on-trump-gets-it-wrong
“Federal funds are never spent the day that Congress votes.
There is no deadline for the spending of federal appropriations unless explicitly specified.
There are dozens sometimes hundreds of steps required by the bureaucracy from the time that Congress votes and the President signs a spending bill until the money actually goes out the door. That’s the norm.
There can be many months or years before money is actually sent to the recipient, sometimes in installments.
The processing time by the bureaucracy is not a standard or known length of time. There is no expectation that money will go out the door at any particular time. Just because Congress appropriated funds doesn’t create any expectation for when money will get distributed (unless Congress adds a deadline).
Deferral does not mean just the processing time within the bureaucracy
Deferral is an intentional act—not we are working on it, gives us a moment.”
Comments
-
The timing of the GAO's bullshit is as obvious as the cavernous brainless cave above Owl's shoulders.
-
Was anyone dumb enough to fall for this?
-
Point of agreement! If you needed the GAO to tell you Daddy violated the law in question, you really haven't been paying attention. This was obvious four months ago.RaceBannon said:Was anyone dumb enough to fall for this?
-
So accountants are now more authoritative on the law than attorneys.HHusky said:
Point of agreement! If you needed the GAO to tell you Daddy violated the law in question, you really haven't been paying attention. This was obvious four months ago.RaceBannon said:Was anyone dumb enough to fall for this?
-
Still waiting for someone to tell me what crime Trump committed. The GAO claim is pure BS.
-
The so-called attorney in this forum has been asked that question for months but refuses to cite US Criminal code or statute.WestlinnDuck said:Still waiting for someone to tell me what crime Trump committed. The GAO claim is pure BS.
-
Supposed ambulance chaser attempts poor imitation of Constitutional scholar.😂
-
If I were cocaine Mitch, I would call one witness - Schiff. I would ask one question, "What crime did Trump commit?" Give the Schiffster five minutes. Then vote.
-
“In any event, even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not— the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents. Those alleged violations were barely noted by the media. But in the hyper-partisan impeachment atmosphere, this report received breathless "breaking news" coverage and a demand for inclusion among the articles of impeachment.
If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law. But let us not continue to water down the constitutional criteria for impeachment by including highly questionable, and on my view wrongheaded, views about violations of an unconstitutional civil law.”Alan Dershowitz -
GAO released the code. And your head is still buried in the sand. Even in the face of the answer.PurpleThrobber said:
The so-called attorney in this forum has been asked that question for months but refuses to cite US Criminal code or statute.WestlinnDuck said:Still waiting for someone to tell me what crime Trump committed. The GAO claim is pure BS.
-
Obstruction of Congress. Oh, wait.WestlinnDuck said:Still waiting for someone to tell me what crime Trump committed. The GAO claim is pure BS.
-
Someone had to ask this disingenuous question. Those of you who wagered it would be Gasbag, please come to the window and collect your money.WestlinnDuck said:Still waiting for someone to tell me what crime Trump committed. The GAO claim is pure BS.
-
The GAO comment is BS. Ball is still in your court, counselor. I pity your clients.
-
Federalist #65, Gasbag.WestlinnDuck said:The GAO comment is BS. Ball is still in your court, counselor. I pity your clients.
-
You want to know what part of the code was violated. When told, your news source says it's BS so you believe it. What a sheep you are.WestlinnDuck said:The GAO comment is BS. Ball is still in your court, counselor. I pity your clients.
-
In the GOP, perjury concerning the President's sexual encounters is a threat to the Republic. The President withholding funds intended to assist a US ally in its defense against a foreign enemy as part of an extortion scheme to retain power is no big deal.2001400ex said:
You want to know what part of the code was violated. When told, your news source says it's BS so you believe it. What a sheep you are.WestlinnDuck said:The GAO comment is BS. Ball is still in your court, counselor. I pity your clients.
-
Supposed Ambulance chaser HUDS, puts his spin that is worthy of his “Gentle Giant” bullshit tale .😂😂😂
-
WSJ
Opinion: The GAO's Legal Conclusion is Wrong
https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-gao-legal-conclusion-is-wrong/70BCEB53-88B7-4BA6-9677-5EF7D6F67CC3.html -
“In any event, even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not— the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents. Those alleged violations were barely noted by the media. But in the hyper-partisan impeachment atmosphere, this report received breathless "breaking news" coverage and a demand for inclusion among the articles of impeachment.
If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law. But let us not continue to water down the constitutional criteria for impeachment by including highly questionable, and on my view wrongheaded, views about violations of an unconstitutional civil law.”Alan Dershowitz -
Opinion: yes I'm sure people who don't like it have the opinion the conclusion is wrong. For example, you have the opinion that Biden is a criminal.DJDuck said:WSJ
Opinion: The GAO's Legal Conclusion is Wrong
https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-gao-legal-conclusion-is-wrong/70BCEB53-88B7-4BA6-9677-5EF7D6F67CC3.html -
In DJ’s defense, he really is stupid enough to believe there is a legitimate explanation for what Daddy was doing. Most of you TugCons know better but will argue to the death that the case hasn’t been proven beyond a metaphysical doubt.DJDuck said:Supposed Ambulance chaser HUDS, puts his spin that is worthy of his “Gentle Giant” bullshit tale .😂😂😂
-
Sounds like the really got ‘em this timHHusky said:
In DJ’s defense, he really is stupid enough to believe there is a legitimate explanation for what Daddy was doing. Most of you TugCons know better but will argue to the death that the case hasn’t been proven beyond a metaphysical doubt.DJDuck said:Supposed Ambulance chaser HUDS, puts his spin that is worthy of his “Gentle Giant” bullshit tale .😂😂😂
-
No. No one is pretending the Senate is principled or worth the powder to blow it to Hell. And you “classical liberals” aren’t keen to ever have the facts of the matter see the light of day. Mitch and Lindsey, who happily prefer a coverup to witness testimony, are willing to oblige you.MikeDamone said:
Sounds like the really got ‘em this timHHusky said:
In DJ’s defense, he really is stupid enough to believe there is a legitimate explanation for what Daddy was doing. Most of you TugCons know better but will argue to the death that the case hasn’t been proven beyond a metaphysical doubt.DJDuck said:Supposed Ambulance chaser HUDS, puts his spin that is worthy of his “Gentle Giant” bullshit tale .😂😂😂
-
The best part is. The entire Senate was sworn in as "impartial jurors" this week. HahaHHusky said:
No. No one is pretending the Senate is principled or worth the powder to blow it to Hell. And you “classical liberals” aren’t keen to ever have the facts of the matter see the light of day. Mitch and Lindsey, who happily prefer a coverup to witness testimony, are willing to oblige you.MikeDamone said:
Sounds like the really got ‘em this timHHusky said:
In DJ’s defense, he really is stupid enough to believe there is a legitimate explanation for what Daddy was doing. Most of you TugCons know better but will argue to the death that the case hasn’t been proven beyond a metaphysical doubt.DJDuck said:Supposed Ambulance chaser HUDS, puts his spin that is worthy of his “Gentle Giant” bullshit tale .😂😂😂
-
The Democrats are going to nominate a SenatorHHusky said:
No. No one is pretending the Senate is principled or worth the powder to blow it to Hell. And you “classical liberals” aren’t keen to ever have the facts of the matter see the light of day. Mitch and Lindsey, who happily prefer a coverup to witness testimony, are willing to oblige you.MikeDamone said:
Sounds like the really got ‘em this timHHusky said:
In DJ’s defense, he really is stupid enough to believe there is a legitimate explanation for what Daddy was doing. Most of you TugCons know better but will argue to the death that the case hasn’t been proven beyond a metaphysical doubt.DJDuck said:Supposed Ambulance chaser HUDS, puts his spin that is worthy of his “Gentle Giant” bullshit tale .😂😂😂
-
HHusky said:
In DJ’s defense, he really is stupid enough to believe there is a legitimate explanation for what Daddy was doing. Most of you TugCons know better but will argue to the death that the case hasn’t been proven beyond a metaphysical doubt.DJDuck said:Supposed Ambulance chaser HUDS, puts his spin that is worthy of his “Gentle Giant” bullshit tale .😂😂😂
This from a guy that still believes the police murdered the Gentle Giant that had his hands up and posed no threat!HHusky said:
In DJ’s defense, he really is stupid enough to believe there is a legitimate explanation for what Daddy was doing. Most of you TugCons know better but will argue to the death that the case hasn’t been proven beyond a metaphysical doubt.DJDuck said:Supposed Ambulance chaser HUDS, puts his spin that is worthy of his “Gentle Giant” bullshit tale .😂😂😂
Please elaborate on the impeachable crime that has been committed HUDS?
-
Bloomberg is in the Senate? Chinteresting.RaceBannon said:
The Democrats are going to nominate a SenatorHHusky said:
No. No one is pretending the Senate is principled or worth the powder to blow it to Hell. And you “classical liberals” aren’t keen to ever have the facts of the matter see the light of day. Mitch and Lindsey, who happily prefer a coverup to witness testimony, are willing to oblige you.MikeDamone said:
Sounds like the really got ‘em this timHHusky said:
In DJ’s defense, he really is stupid enough to believe there is a legitimate explanation for what Daddy was doing. Most of you TugCons know better but will argue to the death that the case hasn’t been proven beyond a metaphysical doubt.DJDuck said:Supposed Ambulance chaser HUDS, puts his spin that is worthy of his “Gentle Giant” bullshit tale .😂😂😂
-
Trump could literally shoot someone in the street. And you'd still find a way to support him. Sheep.DJDuck said:HHusky said:
In DJ’s defense, he really is stupid enough to believe there is a legitimate explanation for what Daddy was doing. Most of you TugCons know better but will argue to the death that the case hasn’t been proven beyond a metaphysical doubt.DJDuck said:Supposed Ambulance chaser HUDS, puts his spin that is worthy of his “Gentle Giant” bullshit tale .😂😂😂
This from a guy that still believes the police murdered the Gentle Giant that had his hands up and posed no threat!HHusky said:
In DJ’s defense, he really is stupid enough to believe there is a legitimate explanation for what Daddy was doing. Most of you TugCons know better but will argue to the death that the case hasn’t been proven beyond a metaphysical doubt.DJDuck said:Supposed Ambulance chaser HUDS, puts his spin that is worthy of his “Gentle Giant” bullshit tale .😂😂😂
Please elaborate on the impeachable crime that has been committed HUDS? -
Barry could literally give the Iranians 150 billion dollars to fund the killing of Americans and you would blow him for it. Keep blowing the away team.
-
WHAT ABOUT OBAMA!?!?WestlinnDuck said:Barry could literally give the Iranians 150 billion dollars to fund the killing of Americans and you would blow him for it. Keep blowing the away team.
Who could have possibly seen that “defense” coming?
