Trump Violated Another Law, the Impoundment Control Act, by Withholding Ukraine Aid

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Democratic Senator Van Hollen Says

During an appearance on MSNBC, Senator Christopher Van Hollen (D-Md.) announced that he'd asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to look into the charges against President Trump to determine whether or not he had violated the Impoundment Control Act.

"We know from the mountain of evidence from the House that the president abused the powers of his office, right?" said Van Hollen, pointing out that the president stands accused of withholding aid to Ukraine in trade for information on a political opponent in the upcoming 2020 presidential election.

"The withholding was illegal, and a violation of the law in a different sense as well. And that would hold true, I believe, even if we accepted the president's more fanciful view of events, where he claimed that this was just some sort of policy review," Van Hollen said.

The Impoundment Control Act, as Van Hollen pointed out, sets out "narrow circumstances" under which the executive branch may withhold funds. Congress must be notified if funds are to be withheld, and no notification was given to Congress, said Van Hollen.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-violated-another-law-impoundment-control-act-withholding-ukraine-aid-democratic-senator-1478966?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1577162807

[Igel]

1. The House witnesses covered this in detail.

But not by name. It's why they were so concerned about the 9/30 deadline--which was actually a 9/15 deadline, given the paperwork and processing necessary to guarantee meeting the actual deadline, and explains their anxiety.

Note that we have tacitly competing definitions of "withheld," now shifting from one definition to another as it suits us.

The aid's not withheld under the Act until that deadline's passed. Otherwise I'd assume it would have all be disbursed asap after 10/1 when the new fiscal year began. Unless Congress specifies, in the text of the budget appropriation, when each tranche should be released. Nobody's made that claim explicitly. In fact, the House witnesses pretty much nixed the idea that there was some sort of deadline other than the end of the fiscal year. If the funds aren't disbursed, Congress needs to be notified.

The aid was scheduled by the executive branch to be disbursed earlier. Perhaps to be sure to not run afoul of the deadline, perhaps for other budgetary reasons. A second definition of "withhold" is to hold the money past the executive-set deadline. I can't imagine why Congress would be validly concerned about a deadline they neither imposed nor, in all likelihood, had been informed about beforehand.


The news is that the GAO was asked to do something. After that it's spin.

[abqtommy]

2. Write it down and spread it 'round. Grind tRUMP into the ground.