Posted on 01/02/2020 5:28:44 PM PST by ctdonath2
Not true, especially in the sphere of Foreign Affairs where conditions can change on a dime while Congressional spending allocation moves glacially. There had been major political changes in Ukraine—the election of a new, untested President, then a new majority political party— since Congress supposedly voted a specific amount of money for Ukraine aid.
First of all, Congress deciding how much Foreign aid and when it must be delivered is not their function, that constitutionally is a function given to the President. Congress allocates a specific amount of money for the purpose of foreign aid, but what is done with it is a presidential prerogative.
If Congress, specifically the House, could designate which nation, when, and the amount of aid, then it would be the House, and not the President, which would be unconstitutionally making and directing Foreign Policy. We would see foreign nations lobbying Congressmen for aid. . . oh, wait we do.
I have never heard of a 45 day limit for funding to be delayed. We have until Sept. 30 to expend our funds, that is all. And we try to expend them at least a month ahead of time, because the process is more complicated than merely spending the money.
Also, what does that mean, that funding cannot be delayed for more than 45 days without Congressional approval? Funding is received from the funding agency; the President is not a funding agency. He is in the position of expending funds, not allocating funds. And sending the funds to Ukraine (or any other country) is an expenditure, not an allocation of funds by a funding agency.
Actually, yes there is.
States that the "obligation" can be delayed up to 45 days, to allow for a request that Congress rescind the spending obligation. After that window, the Comptroller General may - having given Congress 25 days notice - file civil suit against the appropriate part of the Executive branch to compel the obligated spending.
Problem for the Left: Schiff raised the issue 2 days after the 45 day window, and OMB released the money the next day. Kinda rude of Trump to abuse the allowed 45 day window (he didn't notify Congress of a request to rescind) and held the funds 3 days longer ... but then again, we all know (and approved!) of Trump being rather rude in high-stakes finance, usually to great benefit. Also, Schiff didn't file notice with Congress that the Comptroller General was filing civil suit over the issue, as the law prescribes. Law stretched, but not broken, and House Democrats didn't follow up as they're supposed to over such a matter.
See #24.
Actually is true, as detailed in #24 above. There is a 45 day requirement, which Trump used rather creatively. Seems he stretched that to 48 days, but there’s a prescribed process for handling that which House Democrats failed to follow; having not done what the law prescribes, their claim of “abuse of power” falls flat.
Thank you.
Summary of the issue so far:
---
2 U.S. Code § 687 presents a requirement that spending obligated by Congress be released by OMB and completed by end of fiscal year (Sept. 30). POTUS can delay spending up to 45 days, a window for asking Congress to rescind.
This is colloquially discussed as "POTUS has 45 days to begin spending Congressionally allocated funds".
Trump delayed the Ukraine weapons spending for (near as I can pin down) 48 days, then OMB released the funds. He did not request Congress rescind the funding obligation.
2 U.S. Code § 687 prescribes a legal process for dealing with an Executive branch which does not request - and get - the spending rescinded within 45 days. Once the 45 day window closes, the Comptroller General may (!) notify Congress that in 25 days he will file civil suit.
The interesting part here is that instead of the Comptroller General following this process, Schiff started impeachment proceedings - i.e.: House Democrats failed to use the legally prescribed process for dealing with such a situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Public_Integrity
Funded by Soros with Arianna Huffington on its board. Why do you guys waste time refuting this shit?
They’re claiming that this 45 day window applied, but there was no specific date established for this Ukraine military Aid to be sent. In fact, this was aid for an upcoming period, not the current period. That’s why the Ukrainians were not asking questions yet. The aid had been approved by Congress months ago, but the regulatory approvals about corruption in military channels had just cleared the Pentagon on this round of aid at the end of June. Trump’s order was not based on a "specific target date" aid was due to be sent, because there wasn’t one. He merely said don’t send it until I personally approve it, put a hold on it. That was on July 3, according to some accounts. Later to others.
Incidentally, they are also mischaracterizing the 45 day timing. That 45-day notification is for when the President or other agency or department wishes to rescind the spending already budgeted for a specific purpose, not just delay it. The President had not made a decision to rescind the spending, at which time a transmittal letter of rescission would be appropriate.
My point is that the President constitutionally does have, and must have, the power in this area to define how these Foreign Aid funds are expended. Congress cannot micromanage foreign policy by specifying foreign aid expenditures for each nation we have contacts with. A mere statute does not, ahem, trump a constitutional specified power.
This entire statute you link to has yet to be tested for constitutionaality in court and should be. By mandating monies be spent we don’t have, Congress is forcing the executive to violate other many other statutes which this law actually prohibits him from properly exercising. It is, in fact and law in conflict with other laws that are much more constitutional than this one, which was passed IIRC by a Democratic Congress under Jimmy Carter, to prevent efforts by future Republicans to getting spending under control by spending less than budgeted if savings could be had.
For example, let me give you a very possible hypothetical: let us suppose that the new president of Ukraine instead of being Zelensky was, instead, a puppet of Putin. This new Ukrainian President, in his first month in office, signs an Armistice and a mutual defense treaty with the Russian Federation, and what’s more signing a mutual military Assistance Pact with Russia agreeing to assist in the re-integration of all the Baltic Nations into a new Russian Hegemony under Putin, by military force if necessary.
Now, Ctdonath2, eleven months ago, under entirely different international and political conditions, Congress voted that $400 million MUST be spent to send US military Foreign Aid to Ukraine including sophisticated targeting radar electronics and Javelin missiles. Is the President still required to expend that money and send that military aid to Ukraine despite the complete sea change in politics and international conditions which happened literally overnight? Or does he follow the constitution and CHANGE FOREIGN POLICY, based on the real world facts, not some ill-conceived budget spending law?
In fact, a less drastic change in Ukraine had occurred with a new president who had yet to show any signs of the corruption reforms he ran on, nor were there any real changes in the military procurement processes despite the Pentagon’s rosy certification there had been, based purely on Zelensky’s so-far non-productive election. The same corrupt people were still in the same procurement positions, doing the same corrupt things. . . So how was Trump to know anything was going to be better and different?
That statute you linked to was designed to hamstring the power of the Executive and usurp the Executive power to the House of Representatives to allow them to micromanage things they were Constitutionally never intended to manage. It means the President would be forced to defer instant Foreign Policy decisions to Congress’ slow budget process, when foreign policy decision time is often measured in days or even hours. It is NOT their constitutional job to execute the spending, but merely to budget it. This statute oversteps their bounds into managing. . . which they should only be doing when overspending occurs. This is where Congressional pork comes from.
Reading the law and the definitions shows there is a distinct difference between delaying expending funds and the 45 days is for rescission, cancelling the spending, not just putting it on hold. POTUS had not decided to request rescission of the Ukraine Aid funds, he was merely holding it until he saw evidence Zelensky’s new government was seriously doing something about clearing out the bad apples in its house. Until he decided to actually cancel the aid, the 45 days would not kick in.
". . . upon which the Congress completes action before the end of the first period of 45 calendar days of continuous session of the Congress after the date on which the President’s message is received by the Congress;
The 45 days is for congress to cancel the spending! . . . not for the POTUS to notify Congress.
The Dems are deliberately misquoting the law to obscure it is a limitation on them, not on when the President needs to notify them!
Rescission once passed is not revocable and would require a new spending bill to re-instate it should he wish to again provide the aid.
"Documents released Tuesday revealed the White House first took official action to withhold the military aid to Ukraine on July 25–the same day as the phone call."
Your linked article is posting already well debunked assertions. It’s well known when the hold on Ukraine’s aid was put into effect from sworn testimony before Adam Schiff’s hearsayings. Trying to use routine in-house emails discussing an event that occurred two weeks before the date on the emails to try to claim that event occurred concurrently with the email is brain dead. Those involved in the email thread have spoken out and stated it was in reference to a two-week old event.
AG Barr has no need to be asked. He has a specific assigned US Attorney who is already traveling to Europe investigating all aspects of the 2016 Ukraine corruption and its involvement in the US President Race. Why ask for what’s already happening?
DNC Shill
He’s not refuting it, he’s pushing it. He’s one of their shills.
What somebody “worried” about is not relevant.
Thanks.
As always, the issue is far more complicated and nuanced than the left would lead us to believe through their soundbites.
More and more, it looks like the “whistleblower” was part of an elaborate fiction created to try to frame normal policy decisions by the President as high crimes, which they are not. They are trying to hamstring the President to prevent him from doing his Constitutional duties. Yet he manages to keep at it—like last night, with the masterful blow against Iran.
The only purpose for an allowable delay is to request rescission, which must be completed within 45 days - after which the spending must proceed, and if it doesn’t the Comptroller General may file civil suit to compel the obligated spending. I can see part of the 45 days being the Executive deciding how, if at all, to request rescission; Trump [ab]used this for a period of “I’m thinking about it”, which is fair by the rules.
The point of the law was to prevent the Executive from delaying/refusing Congress-authorized spending - exactly what Trump was doing.
Practically speaking, the law allows for a minimum 70 day delay (45 period to allow rescission by Congress, 25 days to notify Congress of pending civil suit compelling spending, latter starts whenever Comptroller General initiates). House Democrats screwed up (from their perspective) by leaping straight to impeachment at just 48 days, without completing the prescribed civil process.
Of note: Obama opposed this law (like several other Presidents) and sought its modification/repeal.
Upshot: Trump complied with the law. House Democrats didn’t.
If I was working for the Democrats it sure as hell wouldn't be for the DNC.
They're inept and don't have any money.
No way they could support my lifestyle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.