THREAD
Scoop in new Ukraine story: OMB lawyers argued Trump "could ignore the requirements of the Impoundment Control Act & continue to hold the aid by asserting constitutional commander in chief powers that give him authority over diplomacy."
That's absurd, & OMB knew it. /1
Scoop in new Ukraine story: OMB lawyers argued Trump "could ignore the requirements of the Impoundment Control Act & continue to hold the aid by asserting constitutional commander in chief powers that give him authority over diplomacy."
That's absurd, & OMB knew it. /1
1st, OMB didn't have the guts to rely on this argument in real time. As @neal_katyal & I have explained, OMB told DOD to hide from Congress the hold on Ukraine aid. If OMB believed its own theory, it would've told DOD, then Congress. But it did neither. /2 washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/1…
2nd, OMB didn't have the guts to rely on this argument after the fact. Months later, when OMB issue a post hoc justification for the hold on Ukraine aid, this argument is nowhere to be found. OMB instead relied on a different (also unavailing) argument. /3 washingtonpost.com/context/white-…
3rd, OMB doesn't have the guts to rely on this argument even now. If OMB had confidence in its position--based on ANY argument--it wouldn't block the testimony @ a Senate impeachment trial of 2 OMB officials, Mulvaney & Duffey--2 of 4 requested by Dems. /4 cnn.com/2019/12/15/pol…
What this all adds up to is a legal argument that doesn't just look absurd now that @EricLiptonNYT @maggieNYT & @MarkMazzettiNYT have uncovered it.
It's a legal argument that was absurd for OMB to be pushing at the time--and OMB itself knew it then, just as it knows it now. /END
It's a legal argument that was absurd for OMB to be pushing at the time--and OMB itself knew it then, just as it knows it now. /END
