[oldalum]

So given he has no authority to suspend WHO funding . . . Because burger is right, doing so would be an impeachable offense, as we learned in December and January.

As I commented on Burger's post above, suspending appropriated funding by itself was not one of the things Trump was impeached for; it was for suspending funding for an improper purpose that constituted Abuse of Power. Now, one might argue that he plans to suspend WHO funding for the purpose of distracting attention from his deficiencies in the feds' pandemic response, which is an improper purpose. Or so that he'd be re-elected, which is an improper purpose. To me that is too much of a stretch to be a viable enough argument to support impeachment. In the first impeachment charge, the connection to his re-election was direct and primary.

from the article I cited in my earlier post, about the GAO finding that the Trump administration's withholding military aid from the Ukraine violated the Impoundment Control Act:  NY Times article

"The law at issue, the Impoundment Control Act, was enacted in 1974. It limits a president’s power to withhold money that has been allocated by Congress, requiring approval from the legislative branch to do so. . . .

This is not the first time that the accountability office has ruled that the Trump administration violated the impoundment act. It did so in December 2017 related to Energy Department funds and in December 2018 related to the Department of Homeland Security’s funding. . . .

Formal determinations by the Government Accountability Office that the Impoundment Control Act has been violated have occurred in past administrations, including during the tenure of President George W. Bush."

[oldalum]

So given he has no authority to suspend WHO funding . . . Because burger is right, doing so would be an impeachable offense, as we learned in December and January.

As I commented on Burger's post above, suspending appropriated funding by itself was not one of the things Trump was impeached for; it was for suspending funding for an improper purpose that constituted Abuse of Power. Now, one might argue that he plans to suspend WHO funding for the purpose of distracting attention from his deficiencies in the feds' pandemic response, which is an improper purpose. Or so that he'd be re-elected, which is an improper purpose. To me that is too much of a stretch to be a viable enough argument to support impeachment. In the first impeachment charge, the connection to his re-election was direct and primary.

from the article I cited in my earlier post, about the GAO finding that the Trump administration's withholding military aid from the Ukraine violated the Impoundment Control Act:  NY Times article

"The law at issue, the Impoundment Control Act, was enacted in 1974. It limits a president’s power to withhold money that has been allocated by Congress, requiring approval from the legislative branch to do so. . . .

This is not the first time that the accountability office has ruled that the Trump administration violated the impoundment act. It did so in December 2017 related to Energy Department funds and in December 2018 related to the Department of Homeland Security’s funding. . . .

Formal determinations by the Government Accountability Office that the Impoundment Control Act has been violated have occurred in past administrations, including during the tenure of President George W. Bush."