The White House violated the law when it withheld aid to Ukraine, a nonpartisan government agency concluded.
The Government Accountability Office announced its legal decision Thursday, saying the Office of Management and Budget's withholding of Ukraine aid that Congress had appropriated was not lawful.
"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the Government Accountability Office said. "OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). ... Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA."
The withheld aid to Ukraine in July 2019 was at the center of the House impeachment inquiry into President Trump, which examined allegations that the president froze the aid to pressure Ukraine into announcing an investigation that might benefit him in the 2020 presidential election. The House last month passed two articles of impeachment charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and the Senate's impeachment trial is expected to begin next week.
An Office of Management and Budget spokesperson said "we disagree with GAO's opinion" and that "OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the president's priorities and with the law." Brendan Morrow
President Trump has a noon deadline on Monday to submit his written defense against impeachment charges before his Senate trial gets fully underway on Tuesday, Reuters reports. Trump, only the third U.S. president to face such a trial, refused to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry in the Democratic-controlled House, so the document will amount to his first comprehensive defense against the charges that he abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate Democrats, and tried to obstruct the House investigation.
On Saturday, Trump's defense team called the impeachment process "a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election." House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) called the Trump legal team's response "errant nonsense," CBS News reports. Harold Maass
During the most recent Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) had a memorable zinger when the conversation inevitably turned to the question of her electability. "Can a woman beat Trump?" Warren asked. "Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they have been in are the women. Amy [Klobuchar] and me."
It seems The New York Times took that to heart.
For the first time ever, the paper's editorial board endorsed not one but two presidential candidates on Sunday: Warren and, you guessed it, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar. In its announcement, the Times appeared torn, as many voters are, between "the radical and the realist models" on display within the Democratic field. But the paper said "Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren right now are the Democrats best equipped to lead that debate."
While pushing back on more "radical" ideas of Warren's, "like nationalizing health insurance or decriminalizing the border," the paper's editorial board said her ideas "have matched the moment." It praised her anti-corruption legislation, along with her proposals on housing reform, energy policy, social security expansion, and childcare and education.
Meanwhile, the board called Klobuchar "a standard-bearer for the Democratic center" and applauded her long history as a lawmaker, noting she is "the most productive senator among the Democratic field in terms of bills passed with bipartisan support." The board was less enthusiastic about concerning reports about Klobuchar's management style. But otherwise it had very little criticism of her, aside from acknowledging "she has struggled to gain traction on the campaign trail."
The paper said its decision was likely to leave some readers "dissatisfied," and indeed, the blow back has already begun. You can read the entire endorsement — or rather, endorsements — at The New York Times. Jessica Hullinger
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani claims he'd "love" to be a witness in President Trump's Senate impeachment trial, reports The Hill.
Giuliani, who serves as Trump's personal lawyer, told radio talk show host John Catsimatidis: "I would love to see a trial. I'd love to be a witness — because I'm a potential witness in the trial — and explain to everyone the corruption that I found in Ukraine, that far out-surpasses any that I've ever seen before, involving Joe Biden and a lot of other Democrats."
Giuliani was allegedly involved in a push to pressure Ukraine into launching investigations into Trump's political rivals, working to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and pushing out former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who was reportedly viewed as an obstacle in obtaining the promise of investigations.
Democrats in Congress have called for the Senate impeachment trial, set to begin arguments this week, to include additional witnesses beyond those who testified in the House inquiry. Senate Republicans have so far declined the requests. No evidence has emerged to prove any wrongdoing by Democrats in Ukraine, but Giuliani said "I have those facts. I have those witnesses. I have documents, and I have recordings. And I would love to get them out in public." Summer Meza
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday accused the National Security Agency of withholding key documents from Congress related to Ukraine that could be relevant in President Trump's impeachment trial.
Speaking to ABC News, Schiff said the NSA appears "to be succumbing to pressure from the administration," also saying "there are signs that the CIA may be on the same tragic course." Schiff said the documents could be important to the central allegation of Trump's impeachment: that he abused his power by withholding Ukraine military aid to push the country into announcing investigations of his political rivals.
The NSA and CIA have not commented on Schiff's allegations, reports NBC News.
Read more at NBC News and ABC News. Summer Meza
House Democrats filed a 111-page legal brief ahead of President Trump's impeachment trial, arguing he threatens national security.
The House prosecutors laid out the argument against Trump that led to his impeachment last month on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The legal brief says "evidence overwhelmingly establishes" Trump's guilt and says the Senate "must eliminate the threat" he poses.
The White House defense team, meanwhile, has not filed its official brief, but rejected the impeachment managers' arguments as "highly partisan." Without directly addressing allegations Trump abused his power by withholding Ukrainian aid to push for a politically-motivated investigation of his rivals, the White House castigated the "lawless process" that led to his impeachment.
Read more at The Washington Post. Summer Meza