1/ The @GAO found that OMB violated the Impoundment Act, and suggested that the President violated his duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. gao.gov/products/B-331… 
2/ To be precise, POTUS did not (and could not) personally violate the Impoundment Act, because the law does not control his personal actions. His liability, if it exists at all, derives from his failure to supervise that his subordinates faithfully execute the law.
3/ @SethBTillman and I explained this dichotomy on @lawfareblog lawfareblog.com/defining-theor… "In the impeachment context, Trump’s liability could result from knowingly failing to take care that his subordinates faithfully executed the law."
4/ Most of the criticisms we received assumed that POTUS personally violated the ICA. Look at what @USGAO wrote. OMB violated the statute, not POTUS. Whether the President violated his duty of faithful execution is a different question OMB does not decide, but only hints at
@USGAO 5/ The Unitary Executive theory (contra @josh_hammer) is not relevant here. There is no inherent, Art II power over spending money. That is a power Congress delegates to the executive branch. But the President retains an obligation to supervise how the law is faithfully executed
@USGAO @josh_hammer 6/ Directing a subordinate to violate the law is not consistent with a duty of faithful execution. We made that point in our post.
@USGAO @josh_hammer 7/ Has the President asserted an Article II power to withhold foreign funds, that would Trump any spending requirements?
@USGAO @josh_hammer 8/ My colleague @SethBTillman clarifies my point. I don't think GAO offers evidence that the President personally directed OMB to do, or not do anything.
9/ If the President personally directed his subordinates to violate the law (and there are disputes here about what violates the law), then there is an Oath Clause violation.
10/ As far as I can tell, we do not have a first-hand account of what the President said or did. At most, adverse inferences can be drawn from what happened, and the failure of subordinates (Mulvaney) to testify and provide information to requests.
11/ I consider four questions about the @USGAO report here:
1. Who does GAO conclude violated the ICA?
2. Did Trump personally direct withhold the funds?
3. Did Trump order violation of ICA?
4. Did GAO find that Trump violated the Take Care Clause?
reason.com/2020/01/17/fou…
1. Who does GAO conclude violated the ICA?
2. Did Trump personally direct withhold the funds?
3. Did Trump order violation of ICA?
4. Did GAO find that Trump violated the Take Care Clause?
reason.com/2020/01/17/fou…
