SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
U.S. Attorney General William Barr speaks at a press conference on December 18, 2019 in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo: Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)
'Destruction of Checks and Balances': WH Lawyers Reportedly Argued Trump Could Override Congress to Freeze Ukraine Aid
"That's unconstitutional. If they had a real legal justification, they wouldn't resort to such absurd claims."
Dec 29, 2019
In an attempt to retroactively justify President Donald Trump's decision to place a hold on nearly $400 million in congressionally-appropriated aid to Ukraine, top lawyers in the White House budget office--in concert with the Justice Department--reportedly developed an argument that Trump could simply override Congress and flout relevant laws by simply asserting his authority as commander-in-chief.
The New York Times reported Sunday that in the late summer, lawyers at the Office of Management and Budget--then run by Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney--argued the president "could ignore the requirements of the Impoundment Control Act and continue to hold the aid by asserting constitutional commander-in-chief powers that give him authority over diplomacy."
Legal experts and Democrats in Congress have argued that Trump's decision to place a hold on aid to Ukraine--a move at the center of the whistleblower complaint that ultimately led to his impeachment--constituted a violation of the Impoundment Control Act.
As the Washington Post reported last month, one OMB legal official resigned over Trump's decision to withhold the aid after raising concerns that the president's move ran afoul of the 1974 law.
Critics reacted with alarm to the proposed justification for freezing the Ukraine aid, which was not disclosed publicly.
"Every Republican lawmaker must be asked if they support this destruction of checks and balances," tweeted MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance.
The Times reporting on the OMB lawyers' efforts was part of a broader story detailing the series of events that unfolded between Trump's order to withhold aid to Ukraine this summer and his decision in September to release the funds.
"What emerges is the story of how Mr. Trump's demands sent shock waves through the White House and the Pentagon, created deep rifts within the senior ranks of his administration, left key aides like Mr. Mulvaney under intensifying scrutiny--and ended only after Mr. Trump learned of a damning whistleblower report and came under pressure from influential Republican lawmakers," the Times reported.
Commentators said the detailed story paints a picture of a president bent on deploying the vast powers of government for his own personal and political gain with complete disregard for the law and, in some cases, the advice of administration officials.
"Everything in here--how Trump was personally involved in blocking the Ukraine money, despite the insistence of senior administration officials, and how the aid was only released after they learned of the whistleblower complaint--is incredibly damning," said HuffPost reporter Matt Fuller.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) tweeted late Sunday that the report "illustrates again that the only Ukraine corruption cases Trump ever raised involved his political opponents."
"The people Trump directed to carry out his scheme hid it from the public and refused to testify to Congress," said Beyer. "This was a clear and terrible abuse of power."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In an attempt to retroactively justify President Donald Trump's decision to place a hold on nearly $400 million in congressionally-appropriated aid to Ukraine, top lawyers in the White House budget office--in concert with the Justice Department--reportedly developed an argument that Trump could simply override Congress and flout relevant laws by simply asserting his authority as commander-in-chief.
The New York Times reported Sunday that in the late summer, lawyers at the Office of Management and Budget--then run by Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney--argued the president "could ignore the requirements of the Impoundment Control Act and continue to hold the aid by asserting constitutional commander-in-chief powers that give him authority over diplomacy."
Legal experts and Democrats in Congress have argued that Trump's decision to place a hold on aid to Ukraine--a move at the center of the whistleblower complaint that ultimately led to his impeachment--constituted a violation of the Impoundment Control Act.
As the Washington Post reported last month, one OMB legal official resigned over Trump's decision to withhold the aid after raising concerns that the president's move ran afoul of the 1974 law.
Critics reacted with alarm to the proposed justification for freezing the Ukraine aid, which was not disclosed publicly.
"Every Republican lawmaker must be asked if they support this destruction of checks and balances," tweeted MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance.
The Times reporting on the OMB lawyers' efforts was part of a broader story detailing the series of events that unfolded between Trump's order to withhold aid to Ukraine this summer and his decision in September to release the funds.
"What emerges is the story of how Mr. Trump's demands sent shock waves through the White House and the Pentagon, created deep rifts within the senior ranks of his administration, left key aides like Mr. Mulvaney under intensifying scrutiny--and ended only after Mr. Trump learned of a damning whistleblower report and came under pressure from influential Republican lawmakers," the Times reported.
Commentators said the detailed story paints a picture of a president bent on deploying the vast powers of government for his own personal and political gain with complete disregard for the law and, in some cases, the advice of administration officials.
"Everything in here--how Trump was personally involved in blocking the Ukraine money, despite the insistence of senior administration officials, and how the aid was only released after they learned of the whistleblower complaint--is incredibly damning," said HuffPost reporter Matt Fuller.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) tweeted late Sunday that the report "illustrates again that the only Ukraine corruption cases Trump ever raised involved his political opponents."
"The people Trump directed to carry out his scheme hid it from the public and refused to testify to Congress," said Beyer. "This was a clear and terrible abuse of power."
In an attempt to retroactively justify President Donald Trump's decision to place a hold on nearly $400 million in congressionally-appropriated aid to Ukraine, top lawyers in the White House budget office--in concert with the Justice Department--reportedly developed an argument that Trump could simply override Congress and flout relevant laws by simply asserting his authority as commander-in-chief.
The New York Times reported Sunday that in the late summer, lawyers at the Office of Management and Budget--then run by Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney--argued the president "could ignore the requirements of the Impoundment Control Act and continue to hold the aid by asserting constitutional commander-in-chief powers that give him authority over diplomacy."
Legal experts and Democrats in Congress have argued that Trump's decision to place a hold on aid to Ukraine--a move at the center of the whistleblower complaint that ultimately led to his impeachment--constituted a violation of the Impoundment Control Act.
As the Washington Post reported last month, one OMB legal official resigned over Trump's decision to withhold the aid after raising concerns that the president's move ran afoul of the 1974 law.
Critics reacted with alarm to the proposed justification for freezing the Ukraine aid, which was not disclosed publicly.
"Every Republican lawmaker must be asked if they support this destruction of checks and balances," tweeted MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance.
The Times reporting on the OMB lawyers' efforts was part of a broader story detailing the series of events that unfolded between Trump's order to withhold aid to Ukraine this summer and his decision in September to release the funds.
"What emerges is the story of how Mr. Trump's demands sent shock waves through the White House and the Pentagon, created deep rifts within the senior ranks of his administration, left key aides like Mr. Mulvaney under intensifying scrutiny--and ended only after Mr. Trump learned of a damning whistleblower report and came under pressure from influential Republican lawmakers," the Times reported.
Commentators said the detailed story paints a picture of a president bent on deploying the vast powers of government for his own personal and political gain with complete disregard for the law and, in some cases, the advice of administration officials.
"Everything in here--how Trump was personally involved in blocking the Ukraine money, despite the insistence of senior administration officials, and how the aid was only released after they learned of the whistleblower complaint--is incredibly damning," said HuffPost reporter Matt Fuller.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) tweeted late Sunday that the report "illustrates again that the only Ukraine corruption cases Trump ever raised involved his political opponents."
"The people Trump directed to carry out his scheme hid it from the public and refused to testify to Congress," said Beyer. "This was a clear and terrible abuse of power."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.