“A nonpartisan government watchdog agency said Thursday that the Pentagon broke the law when it swapped five Taliban leaders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl earlier this year. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), in a legal opinion issued at the request of congressional lawmakers, said the Defense Department violated the law by failing to notify key Capitol Hill committees at least 30 days in advance. Further, the report said the Pentagon broke another law by using funds that were not technically available.” ... When DOD failed to notify specified congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of its transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Qatar, DOD used appropriated funds in violation of section 8111,” the report said. The GAO also said DOD violated the Antideficiency Act, which bars spending by agencies above the amount of money that Congress has obligated. In this case, the report said the Defense Department spent nearly $1 million more than it had.”
“Defense Department press secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby told Fox News Thursday night, “the operation to retrieve Sgt. Bergdahl was lawfully conducted and that was also the judgment of the Justice Department. Nothing has changed about our view that this was a lawful recovery operation.” The GAO said the law in this case is “clear and unambiguous.” The agency said that while the Defense Department defended the legality of the controversial swap, “in our view, DOD has dismissed the significance of the express language” in the law.”
What worries you more? A: A government that does not follow the law. B: A government that has no reason to fear the people when it tramples it? C: Something independent of the choices provided. D: All of the above.
Of course it was illegal. He had to consult congress first. It has nothing to do with politics, and wouldn't matter what president did it. Law is law.
But nothing will come of it. Its not like he has another election in his future. All he has in his future is more wealth, and fun times laughing at the American public.
Of course it was illegal. He had to consult congress first. It has nothing to do with politics, and wouldn't matter what president did it. Law is law.
But nothing will come of it. Its not like he has another election in his future. All he has in his future is more wealth, and fun times laughing at the American public.
And legacy of obama phones, obamacare and obama (food) stamps.
And legacy of obama phones, obamacare and obama (food) stamps.
Some of what he is doing is well within the 'authority' of a president and his administration. Some of it is not by the 'spirit' of his authority, and is an abuse of power, but technically legal. Some of it is outright illegal.
To be fair, Bush started the phone program. O just expanded it and lowered the bar for entry. Even O-care wasn't really his idea. its just rehash of stuff from decades ago. He just didnt care enough about the law and rammed it thru, unlike previous attempts. Really nothing of what he has done has been his idea.
Some of what he is doing is well within the 'authority' of a president and his administration. Some of it is not by the 'spirit' of his authority, and is an abuse of power, but technically legal. Some of it is outright illegal.
To be fair, Bush started the phone program. O just expanded it and lowered the bar for entry. Even O-care wasn't really his idea. its just rehash of stuff from decades ago. He just didnt care enough about the law and rammed it thru, unlike previous attempts. Really nothing of what he has done has been his idea.
True that even the guy who spent the entire game on the bench gets a ring after the big game victory. He can still say he got the ring. He will have a legacy, some of it he will earn even if all he did was pass out cups of water and talk trash. Some will be bestowed upon by people with rose colored glasses.
From what I gleaned of the full report, his primary sin was that he: 1. Didn't consult with Congress as laid out by both constitutional precedent and congressional rules. 2. The whole thing was financed partially by monies not appropriated for this project and partially funded by "non-existent" monies.
It didn't really delve much into the aspect of whether the soldier should have been extracted using very-much-suspected terrorists as bargaining chips.
From what I gleaned of the full report, his primary sin was that he: 1. Didn't consult with Congress as laid out by both constitutional precedent and congressional rules. 2. The whole thing was financed partially by monies not appropriated for this project and partially funded by "non-existent" monies.
It didn't really delve much into the aspect of whether the soldier should have been extracted using very-much-suspected terrorists as bargaining chips.
Technically the goal or technique isn't part of the legal issue.. ( tho i think it was a bad idea, if congress approved of it, it was legal )
From what I gleaned of the full report, his primary sin was that he: 1. Didn't consult with Congress as laid out by both constitutional precedent and congressional rules. 2. The whole thing was financed partially by monies not appropriated for this project and partially funded by "non-existent" monies.
It didn't really delve much into the aspect of whether the soldier should have been extracted using very-much-suspected terrorists as bargaining chips.
So just how much did it "cost" to let some people free from detention?
Why would he? He is getting his way on everything like a whiny child, and having one hell of a party/vacation on our dime without having to work.... Hell, i want that gig too...
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: If the roles were reversed and a republican were in office most of those supporters would defend,look the other way or not even care.
Zero difference.
I know *I* would care. Breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of what party you are, even I agreed with the 'goal'.
I know *I* would care. Breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of what party you are, even I agreed with the 'goal'.
I agree here wit Nurb432. You are trying to muddy the water and let him and you slide while you accept the illegality of what he is doing. Maybe it is even blame shifting. ie, everybody does it.
Originally posted by MadMark: Maybe it is even blame shifting. ie, everybody does it.
That's the standard Democrat party line. Rail against any Republican wrongdoing, but if anything is suggested about one of their own, well - "they all do it."
Why would he? He is getting his way on everything like a whiny child, and having one hell of a party/vacation on our dime without having to work.... Hell, i want that gig too...
Oh I do not for one millisecond think he would ever go willingly. I suppose he might, but only if he was paid enough. Yes, I am implying I think he can be bought.
I was more thinking of impeachment or an unfortunate "tragedy".
