Conservative Musings

Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Showing posts with label GAO. Show all posts

Monday, January 20, 2020

GAO Is Wrong!

Trump Had Right to Withhold Ukraine Funds: GAO is Wrong

by Alan M. Dershowitz
January 17, 2020 at 7:00 pm

The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.
To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.
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.
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.

The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy... It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president. (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Wikipedia Commons)

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has gotten the constitutional law exactly backwards. It said that the "faithful execution of the law" — the Impoundment Control Act—"does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those congress has enacted into law ." Yes, it does — when it comes to foreign policy. The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.
To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.
Consider the following hypothetical situation: Congress allocates funds to Cuba (or Iran or Venezuela). The president says that is inconsistent with his foreign policy and refuses to release the funds. Surely the president would be within his constitutional authority. Or consider the actual situation that former President Barack Obama created when he unilaterally made the Iran deal and sent that enemy of America billions of dollars without congressional approval. I do not recall the GAO complaining about that presidential decision, despite the reality that the Iran deal was, in effect, a treaty that should require senate approval that was never given.
Whatever one may think about the substantive merits of what President Donald Trump did or did not do with regard to the Ukrainian money— which was eventually sent without strings —he certainly had the authority to delay sending the funds. The GAO was simply wrong in alleging that he violated the law, which includes the Constitution, by doing so.
To be sure, the statute requires notification to Congress, but if such notification significantly delays the president from implementing his foreign policy at a time of his choice, that too would raise serious constitutional issues.
Why then would a nonpartisan agency get it so wrong as a matter of constitutional law. There are two obvious answers: first, in the age of Trump there is no such thing as nonpartisan. The political world is largely divided into people who hate and people who love President Trump. This is as true of long term civil servants as it is of partisan politicians. We have seen this with regard to the FBI, the CIA, the Fed and other government agencies that are supposed to be nonpartisan. There are of course exceptions such as the inspector general of the Department of Justice who seems genuinely non-partisan. But most civil servants share the nationwide trend of picking sides. The GAO does not seem immune to this divisiveness.
Second, even if the GAO were non-partisan in the sense of preferring one political party over the other, it is partial to Congress over the president. The GAO is a congressional body. It is part of the legislative, not executive, branch. As such, it favors congressional prerogatives over executive power. It is not surprising therefore that it would elevate the authority of Congress to enact legislation over that of the president to conduct foreign policy.
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 M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the book, Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo, Skyhorse Publishing, November 2019. He is a Distinguished Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Drug Cartels Use All Sorts Of Methods To Get Their Product Into The US

Nearly 70 Mexican Border Tunnels Discovered in 5 Years

2259

Government Accountability Office

by RYAN SAAVEDRA4 May 2017Washington, D.C.210

A report released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) this week demonstrates all tunnels discovered were under the U.S.-Mexico Border.

The report revealed that from fiscal years 2011 through 2016, 67 cross-border smuggling tunnels were discovered along the U.S.-Mexico border. Sixty-two out of the 67 smuggling tunnels were in the Border Patrol’s Tucson, Arizona, and San Diego, California, sectors which are known strongholds of the Sinaloa Cartel.

The GAO also found there were 534 detected ultralight aircraft incursions and 309 detected incidents of drug smuggling that involved small fishing vessels. Seventy-five percent of the maritime drug smuggling incidents occurred on the Pacific coast.

“While these methods account for a small proportion of known smuggling, they can be used to transport significant quantities of drugs or for terrorist activity,” the report noted.

Breitbart Texas has reported extensively on the different techniques used by Mexican cartels to smuggle narcotics and humans into the United States. Most recently, Tucson Sector Border Patrol agents discovered two tunnels within the span of a week. The first was on April 26, when agents discovered a tunnel that extended into the United States by 60 yards and had collapsed. The next tunnel was reported by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on April 28, where agents found one under construction.

In April 2016, U.S. authorities found what they believed was the largest ever cross-border smuggling tunnel along the California-Mexico Border. The tunnel was estimated to be over 800 yards long and included an elevator, lights, rails, and a ventilation system.

Ryan Saavedra is a c

Friday, April 14, 2017

Trumps Trips Are Far Less Expensive Than Leftist Lame Stream Media Has Been Blabbering About

Time for some corrections! Chicago Tribune fact-checks costs of Trump travel; CNN hardest hit

Posted at 7:21 am on April 13, 2017 by Greg P.

By now you’ve read — probably countless times — that Donald Trump’s travel budget is so YUGE that it’s “on pace to surpass 8 years of Obama’s travel in 1 year.” Via CNN:

CNN got its estimate for Trump — $21.6M — by taking the cost of a trip Obama took to Palm Beach in 2013 — $3.6M — and multiplying it by 6, the number of times Trump has visited Mar-a-Lago:

Given variations in each trip, estimating the security costs around a presidential trip is difficult. But a 2016 Government Accountability Office report about a four-day trip Obama took to Florida in 2013 — one similar to Trump’s trips — found the total cost to the Secret Service and Coast Guard was $3.6 million.

To date, Trump has spent six weekends — and a total of 21 days — at Mar-A-Lago, his private Palm Beach club. The total estimated costs for those trips are around $21.6 million.

As for Obama’s total — $97M over 8 years — CNN relied on a report from Judicial Watch:

Obama, by contrast, spent just under $97 million on travel in his eight years as president, according to documents reviewed by Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog. These trips included personal trips – including ski trips to Aspen and the Obama’s annual family vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts — and work trips, like a visit to Everglades National Park on Earth Day in 2015.

But, surprise! The Chicago Tribune contacted the author of the 2016 GAO study that CNN used for the $3.6M estimate and he’s says you can’t compare the two trips:

From the Tribune:

The GAO’s bottom line for that trip, not including regular White House personnel costs as well as some classified expenses, was $3.6 million. But the author of that report, Brian Lepore, says that figure shouldn’t be applied to Trump’s travel.

“It’s hard to substitute one trip for another, even if the destination is the same,” Lepore said. Each time a president travels, the Defense Department must airlift equipment such as the protective limousines, security vehicles and occasionally helicopters from various military bases around the country.

Oh, and CNN left this out of its report — Obama flew to Chicago before flying to Palm Beach:

Another problem with extrapolating from the October 2016 GAO report is that it included a leg from Washington to Chicago, where Obama gave an economic speech before heading to Palm Beach for a long weekend of golf.

Obama was only in Chicago for a few hours, but costs pile up because each destination triggers the need for the Secret Service to prepare and protect the site and the Defense Department to move the equipment involved.

Another significant cost-driver, GAO noted, is the per-hour cost of military aircraft, such as the president’s plane, Air Force One. So it’s not just a matter of slicing off a few hundred thousand dollars to come up with the $3 million estimate.

“If you take out Chicago, that just means the equipment is going to have to come from other bases,” Lepore said. Sometimes that means more money, sometimes less.

Judicial Watch, which CNN also quoted in its article, puts the estimate of Trump’s travel at closer to $1M/visit:

Judicial Watch arrives at its $1 million figure by estimating flight time and typical Secret Service costs, leaving out airlifting equipment such as the presidential limousines. Those costs also aren’t fully included in Judicial Watch’s $96 million total for Obama.

Time for some corrections, people.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Finally A Senator Tells The Truth

Former lawmaker blasts Congress: America doesn’t trust you

Posted on April 27, 2016 by Sam Rolley wastepic

Former budget hawk Sen. Tom Coburn visited some of his old colleagues on Wednesday to talk about something with which he’s very familiar: How wasteful congressional spending is killing the country.

Coburn, famous for the annual government waste reports he produced in Congress, joined the head of the Government Accountability Office to talk about the massive amount of money currently being wasted on duplicative federal programs.

More on that here: Common sense could save taxpayers billions

“In 2015 I spent my time in 21 different states,” Coburn said during his opening remarks. “And America doesn’t trust you anymore. That’s the truth. Because they don’t see the actions coming out of Congress that should be coming out.”

The retired lawmaker went on to note that a huge part of the problem is Congress’s failure to force federal agencies to comply with the recommendations of GAO reports which routinely unveil ways that boneheaded bureaucrats are wasting tax dollars.

“You’ve lost their confidence,” he said. “And that’s not one party, that’s both. And so when you have hundreds of billions of dollars that could be saved and aren’t, and they know it. You know, they actually read your reports. People online, and then they use social media, pass it around.”

Coburn noted that median family incomes, stifled by “too much government” and “too intrusive government,” haven’t budged since 1988.

The lawmaker added that Congress’s failures to shrink the size of government are going to cause the stagnation to continue.

“The unfunded liabilities of this country, with its debt, is $142 trillion,” he said. “That’s $1 million per family, or that’s $1 million per taxpayer. Nobody knows what a trillion is but when you’re telling a young family with small kids, ‘Oh, by the way, here’s the debt burden that’s coming to you over the next 25 years, you better be prepared for it.’”

Coburn told the lawmakers that it’s time to stop worrying about offending different groups of voters and get busy correcting economic problems.

“Here’s what I’ve discovered, all this waste, all this duplication, all this fraud has a constituency. And so a lot of people don’t want to take a vote to eliminate it because it will offend a group of voters or a group of contributors.”

“I think you ought to offend them all,” Coburn said.

Coburn is currently working with an organization calling for a Convention of the States to force Congress to balance the budget. Learn more here.