The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has concluded that the Office of Management and Budget violated the law when it withheld funds appropriated to the Defense Department for security assistance to Ukraine to further the President's policy goals. 

That blocking of funds is at the heart of the impeachment articles on which Trump will be tried in the Senate next week. 

Related: Rep. Schiff Officially Presents Articles of Trump Impeachment

"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own 

policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," said the OMB report "OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA."

"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," GAO said. 

OMB argued that a "policy development process" is a fundamental part of implementing a program, but GAO wasn't buying it. "We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason." 

And it is the President's obligation to make sure such funds are released in a timely manner. "[U]nless Congress has enacted a law providing otherwise, the President must take care to ensure that appropriations are prudently obligated during their period of availability," it said. 

Look for Democratic impeachment managers to use the report as further support for the abuse of power article against the President. 

The long, long trail winding from the FCC's Dec. 14, 2017, decision to eliminate net neutrality rules and the actual rollback of those rules continues to wind through Washington, with April 27 the next red-letter day.

While some were reporting earlier this week that April 23 was the effective date of the Restoring Internet Freedom order, that was not the case, or at least not the case with the overwhelming majority of the order, which still awaits the turn of another government wheel or two.

The rule rollback will not happen until the FCC sets an effective date, which will not happen until the Office of Management and Budget rules on whether the information collection portions of the transparency portion of the FCC's order do not violate the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Related: INCOMPAS Says FCC Ignored Key Info In Net Neutrality Decision

That can't happen until at least Friday (April 27), which is the deadline for final comments on the specifics of that information collection. If there are no comments--as there were not in the initial comment period, the decision on when the rules against blocking, throttling, paid prioritization and more go into effect could come relatively quickly.

There was a two-month initial comment period for that OMB review, which closed March 19 without any comments being filed according to an FCC spokesperson--the FCC receives those comments as well.

There was a second 30-day comment period on the FCC's summary of the info collection, which opened March 28 and closed April 27. Those comments, if any, are not yet publicly available, but after April 27, the FCC will make any changes to the summary based on those comments and, if OMB approves that, the FCC will publish the supporting statement and comments--again, if any--and can finally release a public notice setting the effective date of the network neutrality rule rollback.

Related: Appeals of Net Neutrality Order Move to D.C. Circuit

If OMB does not approve the new reporting requirements, which is unlikely, the rollback would not go into effect until that was resolved.

The FCC made it clear that its deregulatory move must await OMB approval of that new information collection regime. That is because the information the FCC will be collecting is on how ISPs are managing their networks, or prioritizing traffic in new business models or, theoretically, blocking and throttling traffic, though ISPs have pledged not to do the last two, so it is central to the new net neutrality enforcement regime envisioned by the commission--and derided by its critics.

In order for the Federal Trade Commission or Justice Department to enforce ISP pledges about how they conduct their business, and determine whether those are unfair or anticompetitive, the FTC must have the information on just how they are doing that.

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation did not find a lot to like in President Donald Trump's new budget.

Following the final budget's release May 23, ITIF vice president for global innovation policy Stephen Ezell said that it would "slash" investments needed for research and workforce education and skills. He said Congress should declare the budget DOA.

ITIF said the country already has underinvested in science, R&D and commercializing tech innovation.

"Further reducing federal investment in these kinds of foundational goods will set back the country even further," Ezell added. 

Noting the proposed 10% cut in non-defense R&D -- while the budget boosts defense spending -- Ezell said there is a big difference between wasteful spending and critical investments. 

ITIF points to, among other things, zeroing out the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, an 11% cut for National Science Foundation grants, and a 70% cut in Manufacturing USA, as well as the elimination of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and 21st Century Community Learning Centers.

"Lawmakers should exercise their constitutional power to approve a budget that better meets the nation’s economic need," he concludes.

While the President proposes and Congress disposes the budget, Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney conceded that the President's budget would not pass as proposed, but signaled the exercise is important in telegraphing the President's priorities.

He said the budget was drawn up with hard-working taxpayers in mind and what programs the government should ask those taxpayers to fund. He said compassion was not defined by the number of programs or dollars but what bang taxpayers were getting for their bucks, plus the need to address a $20 trillion deficit and the need to boost investment in defense and security.