quote:

Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap

President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday.

“[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Our little big-eared "constitutional scholar' got schooled yet again

quote:

Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap

President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday.

“[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.”

The general rule is that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, unless you are a Democrat.

In that case, one is simply above the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Or a Republican committing treason in Iran-Contra.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking

But then, seeing that the US is effectively a failed state with no functioning government, one can understand Obama having to resort to extraordinary measures to protect a US serviceman.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Or a Republican committing treason in Iran-Contra.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Our little big-eared "constitutional scholar' got schooled yet again

quote:

Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap

President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday.

“[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.”

The general rule is that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, unless you are a Democrat.

In that case, one is simply above the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Actually it was the Department of Defense that broke the law. I don't recall the President being at the exchange when it took place, either. There are many layers between both groups and the President; why didn't any one of them point out this as a real problem?

Unless of course, the issue has been...massaged....from a minor thing, to a major issue, by a political party that holds a conflict of interest in seeing justice be done. Unless you can show me solid evidence the GOP/TP has no conflict of interest?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The opinion of the GAO is e pluribus unum. And it is simplistic. Don't know how it could possibly be perceived as authoritative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Actually it was the Department of Defense that broke the law. I don't recall the President being at the exchange when it took place, either. There are many layers between both groups and the President; why didn't any one of them point out this as a real problem?

Unless of course, the issue has been...massaged....from a minor thing, to a major issue, by a political party that holds a conflict of interest in seeing justice be done. Unless you can show me solid evidence the GOP/TP has no conflict of interest?

Mr Change-We-Can-Believe-In is always totally out of the loop

And of course it's minor - he is a Democrat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Actually it was the Department of Defense that broke the law. I don't recall the President being at the exchange when it took place, either. There are many layers between both groups and the President; why didn't any one of them point out this as a real problem?

Unless of course, the issue has been...massaged....from a minor thing, to a major issue, by a political party that holds a conflict of interest in seeing justice be done. Unless you can show me solid evidence the GOP/TP has no conflict of interest?

Mr Change-We-Can-Believe-In is always totally out of the loop

And of course it's minor - he is a Democrat.

In this case it would be reasonable to say he would not be aware of such an abstract law. Given that Republican/Tea Partiers have been trying anything and everything to discredit and remove the President; its not hard to understand the motive for bringing up something this obscure. As I stated before, the Republican/Tea Party automatically take the position that is opposite of the Presidents. Even if its a position that they once held, finding the President agrees with it, and switches position immediately while telling their propaganda machines to 'inform' the public they never held those positions (i.e. much of the Affordable Care Act).

Now if your accusing the President of direct knowledge and wrong doing; then you of course have the burden of evidence to bring forth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Actually it was the Department of Defense that broke the law. I don't recall the President being at the exchange when it took place, either. There are many layers between both groups and the President; why didn't any one of them point out this as a real problem?

Unless of course, the issue has been...massaged....from a minor thing, to a major issue, by a political party that holds a conflict of interest in seeing justice be done. Unless you can show me solid evidence the GOP/TP has no conflict of interest?

Mr Change-We-Can-Believe-In is always totally out of the loop

And of course it's minor - he is a Democrat.

In this case it would be reasonable to say he would not be aware of such an abstract law. Given that Republican/Tea Partiers have been trying anything and everything to discredit and remove the President; its not hard to understand the motive for bringing up something this obscure. As I stated before, the Republican/Tea Party automatically take the position that is opposite of the Presidents. Even if its a position that they once held, finding the President agrees with it, and switches position immediately while telling their propaganda machines to 'inform' the public they never held those positions (i.e. much of the Affordable Care Act).

Now if your accusing the President of direct knowledge and wrong doing; then you of course have the burden of evidence to bring forth.

Barack signed that law.

But its okay... Not a problem.

He is a Democrat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Our little big-eared "constitutional scholar' got schooled yet again

quote:

Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap

President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday.

“[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.”

The general rule is that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, unless you are a Democrat.

In that case, one is simply above the law.

Actually it was the Department of Defense that broke the law. I don't recall the President being at the exchange when it took place, either. There are many layers between both groups and the President; why didn't any one of them point out this as a real problem?

Unless of course, the issue has been...massaged....from a minor thing, to a major issue, by a political party that holds a conflict of interest in seeing justice be done. Unless you can show me solid evidence the GOP/TP has no conflict of interest?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Actually it was the Department of Defense that broke the law. I don't recall the President being at the exchange when it took place, either. There are many layers between both groups and the President; why didn't any one of them point out this as a real problem?

Unless of course, the issue has been...massaged....from a minor thing, to a major issue, by a political party that holds a conflict of interest in seeing justice be done. Unless you can show me solid evidence the GOP/TP has no conflict of interest?

Mr Change-We-Can-Believe-In is always totally out of the loop

And of course it's minor - he is a Democrat.

In this case it would be reasonable to say he would not be aware of such an abstract law. Given that Republican/Tea Partiers have been trying anything and everything to discredit and remove the President; its not hard to understand the motive for bringing up something this obscure. As I stated before, the Republican/Tea Party automatically take the position that is opposite of the Presidents. Even if its a position that they once held, finding the President agrees with it, and switches position immediately while telling their propaganda machines to 'inform' the public they never held those positions (i.e. much of the Affordable Care Act).

Now if your accusing the President of direct knowledge and wrong doing; then you of course have the burden of evidence to bring forth.

Barack signed that law.

But its okay... Not a problem.

He is a Democrat.

Ok, I'll got much slower in explaining this one to you....

The law was in place and signed by the President (some time after 7/24/2014). But its not the President that made the mistake. Maybe you should try reading the ACTUAL REPORT, from the OP's link of the DOCUMENT CITED.

"As explained below, we conclude that DOD violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer."

It was the Department of Defense's job to follow through on its duties under the present laws of the land; not the President's in this case. That you are saying its the President's fault simply shows you'll attack him on anything....even if...the evidence doesn't support it. If the DoD failed to notify the correct persons in a timely manner, that's its fault.

The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014, was to help fund the US Military for 2014 for "...Operations and Maintenance...". Here is Section 8111:

"Sec. 8111. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government."

Where in the action does it state the DoD has to notify Congress on the action(s) it was about to take?

In court, it be the prosecution (i.e. the GOP/TOP) that has to explain that the chain of events might have taken place AFTER the bill become law. And the defense has to do is show that 'the ball started rolling' before June of 2014. Of course, this would take place in a closed door session due to the material being presented is of a secret nature.

Even if the DoD is found guilty, its....STILL....not the President's fault. Unless the GOP/TP can show a direct line of evidence that specifically links the President. Good Luck....

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
And Barack didn't know about the 30-day requirement? White House Counsel didn't tell him? DoD counsel didn't tell him? Of course not. Barack was blindsided. To anyone who is a submissive, imagine a Dom like Barack. Nothing is EVER his fault. He never knows about anything. He is always blindsided. And this isn't your dom, but the ostensible leader of the free world. Pathetic.