Your Once and Final Supreme Double Impeachee

[Dr Sardonicus]

This GAO decision indicates a violation of US law missing from the articles of impeachment. I had kind of wondered about this. The law in question was passed when Nixon was president, after he tried to "impound" appropriations he didn't like.

Decision


Matter of: Office of Management and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance

File: B-331564

Date: January 16, 2020

DIGEST

In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from
obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security
assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine
apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances
unavailable for obligation.

Faithful execution of the law 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 (ICA).
The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB
violated the ICA.

[ewmayer]

Outstanding context-providing article for the upcoming Senate trial - note dated 17 December, so some material may be dated:

The Polemicist: Impeachment: What Lies Beneath?

Includes a fascinating history of executive privilege:

This “executive privilege” argument between the legislature and the executive has been going on for a long time, and has always been settled by which side in the substantive debate the Congress was on. Indeed, those who (like myself) tend to favor the prerogatives of congressional oversight should be aware that the claim of “executive privilege” has a more complicated political history than we might like to think.

Dwight Eisenhower was the first President to coin the term, and he used “executive privilege” in a way that liberals and leftists have always applauded—against Joe McCarthy. He defied the McCarthy committee subpoenas, forbidding the "provision of any data about internal conversations, meetings, or written communication among staffers, with no exception to topics or people"—effectively shutting down the Army-McCarthy hearings and throwing Tail-gunner Joe’s career into a tailspin.

In Emile de Antonio’s documentary Point of Order, you’ll see McCarthy—in his inimitably hysterical way, with his lawyer, Bobby Kennedy, sitting behind him—warning his colleagues, including Missouri Democratic Senator Stuart Symington, that President Eisenhower’s “executive privilege” claim has repercussions way beyond this particular hearing or any partisan loyalty, and would come back to bite the Congress and the country if it was accepted.

And so it came to pass, twenty years later, when the Democrats in Congress—including the same Stuart Symington—flipped their position on “executive privilege” when Nixon used it to defend himself. The liberals had come to McCarthy’s position, because it now suited their political objective.

So, no, there is no definitive legal ruling on executive privilege, nothing about it is “self-evident,” nobody has a privileged moral or legal position from which to unequivocally declare that either the use of executive privilege or the appeal to the courts about it is “obstruction,” and Republican senators and their constituents are not going to accept Nancy Pelosi’s or Jerry Nadler’s attempt to do so. Again, there is too much reasonable political doubt. The Obstruction of Congress Article will fail in the Senate and among the people.

And ends with a bit of "it would be irresponsible not to" speculation re. why the House Dems are pursuing their incredibly weak, guaranteed-to-fail impeachment charges to a full Senate trial. My own speculation here is to the effect that the Senate trial will have the salutary-for-the-establishment-Dems effect of taking certain key presidential candidates - well, now just one, since the other revealed her true stripes last week - who have been making discomfitingly progressive-sounding noises off the campaign trail; the alternate ME-policy-driven scenario laid out in the above had not occurred to me.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Following up on this post earlier in the thread...

On December 20, 2019, the Crown Prosecution Service formally charged Anne Secoolas with causing death by dangerous driving. The maximum penalty is 14 years in prison, though she would be unlikely to face that severe a punishment.

On January 10, 2020, the UK formally requested the US Department of Justice that she be extradited to the UK to face those charges. The US rejected the request as "highly inappropriate," calling it an "egregious abuse."

IMO the hypocritical duplicity of this statement is topped by that of Sacoolas's lawyer, who said her client "co-operated fully with the investigation and accepted responsibility." (my emphasis)

Harry Dunn's parents had, through their spokesman Radd Seiger, previously announced plans to sue both Anne Sacoolas for wrongful death, and the Administration for enabling her to avoid responsibility for her actions.

Back in October, Il Duce tried to arrange a surprise meeting between the grieving parents and the woman who killed their son, to be capped off with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin buying them off with a check, and hugs all 'round. He reckoned not with Harry Dunn's parents' humanity, decency, and desire for justice.

A woman in Salida, CO has started a Twitter group, "Americans for Justice 4 Harry." It has attracted a small following.

I facetiously suggest that the UK bring charges against Il Duce and the US State Department as accessories after the fact (harboring a fugitive and conspiracy to harbor a fugitive).

In lieu of such charges actually being filed, perhaps mock "wanted posters" to that effect could be made up and distributed.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

On January 10, 2020, the UK formally requested the US Department of Justice that she be extradited to the UK to face those charges. The US rejected the request as "highly inappropriate," calling it an "egregious abuse."

Then perhaps the UK can reciprocate with the Assange extradition and call it highly inappropriate and egregious abuse.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

Then perhaps the UK can reciprocate with the Assange extradition and call it highly inappropriate and egregious abuse.

Unlikely as to the characterization -- The US State Department is sticking to its claim that the accused was protected by diplomatic immunity at the time of the offense charged. No such claim can be made for Assange.

As the outcome of Assange's extradition hearing, I am not enough of a UK expert to be able to dismiss out of hand the possibility that it might be colored by the politics of the Harry Dunn case.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

As the outcome of Assange's extradition hearing, I am not enough of a UK expert to be able to dismiss out of hand the possibility that it might be colored by the politics of the Harry Dunn case.

You may very well say that but I couldn't possibly comment.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Following up on this post earlier in the thread...

See also https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-...shire-51168822

[xilman]

Another interesting allegation.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-CIA-spy.html

[Dr Sardonicus]

Under the heading How did they drag this out so long? -- a federal judge told DOJ four and a half months ago either to charge him or drop the investigation --

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors have declined to charge former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, closing an investigation into whether the longtime target of President Donald Trump's ire had lied to federal officials about his involvement in a news media disclosure, McCabe's legal team said Friday.
<snip>
McCabe's lawyers, Michael Bromwich and David Schertler, said they were gratified by the decision.

"At long last, justice has been done in this matter," the lawyers said in a statement. "We said at the outset of the criminal investigation, almost two years ago, that if the facts and the law determined the result, no charges would be brought."

McCabe, a frequent target of Trump's attacks, has denied that he intentionally misled anyone. He has said his 2018 firing — for what the Justice Department called "lack of candor" — was politically motivated. He sued the Justice Department in August, saying officials had used the inspector general's conclusions as a pretext to rid the FBI of leaders Trump perceived as biased against him.

The weather forecast is for more twitter tantrums.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Under the heading How did they drag this out so long? -- a federal judge told DOJ four and a half months ago either to charge him or drop the investigation -- The weather forecast is for more twitter tantrums.

An absolute blizzard, no doubt. Crazy times we live in.

[ewmayer]

Well, Team D and their FBI pals dragged out the RussiaRussiaRussia and ImpeachImpeachImpeach circuses for over 3 full years before finally bringing some laughably weak-tea 'charges' ... a mere 4 months seems rather modest by comparison. Gives McCabe plenty of time to parlay his 'victimhood' into lucrative MSM gigs and probably a forthcoming book deal.

World's smallest violin playing a tiny sad lament here...