In clandestine midnight meetings with Deep Throat, Bob Woodward got the advice:
Follow the money. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) controls the purse strings on disbursements.
In the next few days you'll hear about the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. From the
House Committee on the Budget Website:Congress passed the ICA in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach – his Administration refused to release Congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he opposed. While the U.S. Constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, the President – through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies – is responsible for the actual spending of funds. The ICA created a process the President must follow if he or she seeks to delay or cancel funding that Congress has provided.
The President must notify Congress for any hold on the appropriated funds. The testimony of Mark Sandy (deputy associate director for national security programs) was that many in the White House OMB office had concerns on the hold up on Ukrainian aid, and they were looking for an official reason from the White House, and not receiving a satisfactory answer, Sandy wanted to consult the Office's legal counsel about how to proceed.
Washington Post wrote:“I just made a general reference to the Impoundment Control Act ... and said that we would have to assess that with the advice of counsel before proceeding,” Sandy said in describing a conversation he had with a political appointee at the agency who was his superior.
Ultimately, that political appointee, Mike Duffey, took over the process of signing off on the documents that held up the Ukraine money. Sandy told impeachment investigators that until that time, Duffey had voiced no interest in the process of approving apportionments.
So the Duffey, a political appointee, signed off on the documents that were so questionable that, according the the testimony of Mark Sandy, two people in OMB resigned, at least in part, because they questioned the legality of what was happening.
I would be curious to hear Duffey testify under oath.
Mark Felt will at least be chuckling quietly from his grave.
Probably, but what I really meant to ask is: Why does FOX News still choose to keep him, not why does he choose to remain with them.
