I wish I did....
...I think I see hope here
“This is the letter in total.”
You missed the enclosure.
He’s basically expropriating funding subject to the referenced sections of this act from 1985. Going to take a bit to determine what that actually means, but it does sound as if he’s pulled a fast one on them.
Interesting twist.... Where will this story go?
“Has Trump fulled a fast one on them?”
Who, hysterical FReepers? I hope so!
The enclosure is the direction he’s taking on the Omni funds
7058(d) is funds for Haiti and prevention of plague outbreaks in other countries. His declaration is necessary before it can be spent.
If this is even close to what I think it is, then I will fast for an extra day during Holy Week to make amends for ever doubting this man.
Did this letter go to Nancy Pelosi or Paul Ryan?
Tracy Beanz over on Twitter has a thread on this and a second document listing another $18 billion that POTUS is scooping up.
Looks like he has the wall pretty much fully funded!
Wish I knew how to post to her thread.
If this letter is true and valid, and means what some want to say it means...... then it means trump can get up monday morning and defund PPH, and defund all the arts crap, and defund every thing he ever said he wants to be defunded.
I wouldn’t get too excited. But, as others have surmised, it may be a ploy to fund the wall. Take progress when and where you can and use whatever means are at your disposal...at the very least, it appears that Haiti will be getting more USA aid...
Ping
Larry,
do you or one of your legal eagle friends know how to interpret this?
sff
Corsi was alluding to this today.
FAIR WARNING: THIS week's column is a deep dive into the inner workings of the House of Representatives. When you kick that rock over, goodness knows what will skitter out. In this case, it reveals some unsavory shenanigans to funnel money to President Donald Trump's proposed border wall.
If you're for the wall, you're thinking, "Good! We should be spending taxpayer dollars to keep illegal immigrants out of the country." But, if I told you the money was going to come from the Pentagon budget, would that still make sense to you?
Federal military troops are forbidden to engage in law enforcement actions – such as enforcing immigration law – by the long-standing posse comitatus prohibitions. (The National Guard is a different case, since its members are under the partial control of their state governors.) The federal agencies charged with protecting U.S. borders and enforcing immigration laws, like the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol, are in the Department of Homeland Security. And the president's budget request for fiscal year 2018 includes just over $44 billion for the department.
So, again, I ask, why should the Pentagon be asked to pay for a border wall? It seems to be a testament to the famous reason Willie Sutton gave for robbing banks: "Because that's where the money is." The Pentagon, with a total proposed budget of $639 billion ($574 in base budget and $65 billion in special "war" accounts), is where lawmakers can find the money for just about anything.
But the House Armed Services Committee version of the annual Pentagon policy bill included a common-sense provision to make sure the Pentagon isn't tasked with paying for the wall: "Section 1039. Rule of construction regarding use of Department of Defense funding of a border wall. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this act or otherwise made available for the fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense may be used to plan, develop or construct any barriers, including walls or fences, along the international border of the United States."
A careful reading of this language (and that's what we do at Taxpayers for Common Sense) points out this is a fairly broad prohibition. The armed services committees don't ultimately control how federal dollars are spent. The Constitution preserves that role for the appropriations committees. But by saying "or otherwise made available … for the Department of Defense," the House Armed Services Committee was foreclosing the possibility of spending any Pentagon money on this wall in a more comprehensive way.
That was the plan. And at Taxpayers for Common Sense, we supported the idea.
Enter the House Rules Committee. A little known congressional powerhouse, the Rules Committee is also called the speaker's committee. It's called that because the speaker of the House simultaneously served as the chairman of the committee until 1910 and, as the committee website says, "because it is the mechanism that the speaker uses to maintain control of the House floor."
The Pentagon policy bill, HR 2810, needed a "rule" to allow for its consideration on the House floor. The committee meets to consider the hundreds of amendments offered by House members, decide which will be allowed during House debate and determine how long that debate may last. And this is where we're going to step off the cliff into the inner workings of the House, as I promised above.
An amendment was offered by Republican Reps. Steven Palazzo and Trent Kelly from Mississippi (which has coastline but no land border) to strike Section 1039. That means Pentagon money could be spent to construct a border wall. In the normal process of things, this amendment would have been accepted by the Rules Committee and then debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives. But nothing about this amendment can be called normal.