The Senate trial of Donald J Trump is upon us. The specific charges of impeachment against him are abuse of power and obstruction of justice. Either one of the two charges is enough to convict Trump and remove him from office.
The abuse of power charge is centered on the Trump’s withholding of military aid (voted on and supported in the House and Senate by both parties) from Ukraine in order to smear Joe Biden and help Trump win the 2020 election. The indictment is that both the military aid money, and a promised visit by Vice President Mike Pence, were conditioned on the Ukrainian government doing what Trump demanded: create some evidence of corruption connected to Joe Biden, or, at least, publicly announce that they were investigating Biden (or his son) for corruption.
Trump and the Republicans have always claimed that the (temporary) withholding of the aid was not for pressuring Ukraine to help him win the 2020 election. Rather, they say, it was to help in fighting corruption. And of course, they note, it was only temporary. In fighting this impeachment charge, Republicans love to sneer at the Democrats, “This is a meaningless charge. What is abuse of power? What law did he break? Show me any law that he broke!”
Ok, the progressives will be happy to show you the law he broke: the Impoundment Control Act.
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, to be exact. And specifically Title X of the act -Impoundment Control - established procedures to prevent the president and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of Congress.
Why was it necessary to make this act? Because Republican presidents are in the habit of usurping the power that was meant to be in the hands of Congress. Congress passed the act in response to Richard Nixon’s executive overreach - his administration refused to release congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he opposed.
It is true that the constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, and the president - through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies - is responsible for the actual spending of funds. The ICA created a process the president must follow if he or she seeks to delay or cancel funding that Congress has provided. citation
Note the terms, “delay” or “cancel.” Congress appropriates the money and the President has to spend it. The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) has several very specific grounds for either delaying the payment (deferral) of congressionally appropriated money or for stopping it altogether (rescission). And both of them include notice or permission from congress and observance of careful procedure and strict time limits.
Did the Trump administration intentionally and illegally withhold funds from Ukraine? Did they knowingly and secretly refuse to send money to Ukraine that both Republicans and Democrats wanted them to have? Did they wrongfully deprive the Ukrainians of American money that was to be used to defend Ukrainian people from attack and murder by Russia and its allies?
Of course! And here’s why:
-Trump’s claim that the money was withheld to fight corruption is, on its face, a lie.
When you want to do a dirty thing you do it secretly. Trump wanted to put the fix in on Joe Biden, so he made a secret plan, that he carried out secretly, using unofficial personnel for something that would provide a real benefit to no one but him.
Now please refer back to the Progressive Assault posting of December 11, 2019 (Re-Initiation). Remember our explanation of Trump’s withholding of money from the Central American countries and Pakistan? The withholding of aid in both cases was announced publicly, by the appropriate agency (State Department), with a clear explanation of what Trump thought was wrong (failure to thwart emigration from the Central American countries and failure of Pakistan to thwart the Taliban and Haqqani terrorists), with a clear and official remedy (stop emigration and kill more terrorists).
The contrast could not be clearer: unlike the aid cut off with the Central American countries and Pakistan, what Trump wanted was something that he could not justify as helping the U.S. It had to be secret because it helped only him. And using the U.S. government to help only yourself is very much like Trump, but impossible to justify to the American people.
-Trump could not withhold aid even if there was corruption.
Trump, and his poorly educated idiots at the Office of Management and Budget, don’t understand the Impoundment Control Act.
Even if there was corruption, and even if Trump wanted to end it (instead of just smearing Biden, who was consistently leading him in the 2020 presidential polls), the president can not delay or withhold congressional money for “policy” reasons.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reviewed the justification set for by Trump’s OMB and decided that it is illegal. Their verdict, “Faithful execution of the law (ICA) does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act. The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore we conclude that the OMB violated the ICA.” And they conclude,”OMB’s assertions have no basis in law.” citation
It’s basically simple: Trump claims that he withheld congressional money because it was in conflict with his supposed policy of fighting corruption. Now, if the aid money had been to fight corruption, and there had been some problem in the program to use that money for that purpose, Trump would have been fine.
But the money was not appropriated to fight corruption - it was appropriated so that the Ukrainian government could buy weapons to defend itself. That is, it was a defense appropriation. And the ICA does not allow the president to cut off congressional money just because it is in conflict with one of his other policies (bogus or true). That can only be done if there is a problem with the actual program that the money funds.
Here’s the punch-in-the-face explanation that nails the illegality of Trump’s action: “The federal law at issue (ICA) provides only limited circumstances under which White House can hold up foreign aid, including efforts to save taxpayer money, or ‘to provide for contingencies’. But the OMB did not invoke any of those specific provisions in either its initial justification for withholding the aid or in its communications with the GAO investigators.”
Their conclusion: “Instead, the agency (Trump’s OMB) said that it was holding up the funds to prevent their use ‘in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.’ In other words, the concerns were of a policy nature. But the ICA does not permit deferrals for policy reasons. Thus, the deferral of [Ukrainian aid] was improper under the ICA.” citation
-The Government Accountability Office gets to make the call on the proper use of congressional money.
Neither Trump nor his idiots at the Office of Management and Budget, get to make the call on whether or not something illegal was done with government money. The proper spending and accountability of congressionally appropriated money is the specific responsibility of the GAO.
The GAO is a non-partisan watchdog group connected to the congress to make sure that our money is properly spent, and they are vigilant in rooting out waste and inefficiency as well as ensuring accountability of government operations. And they enjoy a very good reputation for this work. citation
Things may get confusing during the Senate trial, or may be completely obscured by a room full of desperate Republicans. But on the charge of the abuse of power there can really be no doubt that Trump did abuse his power. He illegally withheld money that Congress meant the Ukrainians to have to defend themselves. And given the non-partisan nature and general reputation of the GAO, I would certainly believe them on this vital issue.
So, did Trump break a real law? And is this enough to convict him of abuse of power? The Easy Answer is: hell yes! Of course he did.
