[ctdonath2]

Starting to make the rounds, this is a verbose and serious article revealing 147 pages of redacted emails purporting to prove that Trump violated a law requiring, with criminal penalty, that Congressionally ordered OMB funds be spent by September 30.

Democrats are touting this as proof of impeachable crimes.

Interesting how the verbose rendition of bureaucrats terrified (to the point of quitting their jobs) of missing the deadline makes the subtly mentioned & ignored timeline excerpted above.

If you come across a Leftist pointing at this article or the emails in question, make this point (buried within the article):

On 9/11, OMB released the aid.

On 9/19, Congress extended the 9/30 deadline.

NO LAW WAS BROKEN.

[tomkat]

More communist(D) bullshit.

[Sarah Barracuda]

More commie LIES..If Trump doesnt want to give Ukraine the money that is his business

[ctdonath2]

Trump comes from a big-money world where high-stakes hardball is played very close to the limits to maximize benefits. The Left is not used to the game Trump plays very well. Yes, there was a 9/30 deadline, which was partially missed - except that 9/19 Congress extended the deadline. Democrats are all stompy-feet that Trump won that game.

[Kakaze]

It was never Ukraine’s money, it belongs to every American tax payer!
Since when is holding OUR MONEY, stealing from a debtor state.

[ctdonath2]

Notice that Schiff “demands to see the whistleblower complaint” on 9/10.

Two consequences (or coincidences):

1. Aid was released 9/11.
2. Deadline was extended 9/19.

If Schiff was trying to catch Trump violating the deadline, he did so too early - giving time for legal compliance.

[ConservativeMind]

These Deep Staters were only worried Trump would not give their Ukraine friends the monies needed to fund Democrats’ family members there. They created a “scene” because it could underpin a fake obstruction allegation and this further supported the same Democrats.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

We have a treaty with Ukraine, signed by Bill Clinton in 1999, that required mutual cooperation in criminal investigations.

The Ukraine appropriations bill mandated that the President make sure the funds would not be stolen.

[blueplum]

There is a requirement for funds to be disbursed by Sep 30 end of govt fiscal year. Except that legislation was passed on Sep 19 to extend the deadline. We can reasonably assume that some democrats voted to enact that extension legislation. So where’s the beef?

We should clear our books IF we have the money to allocate or UNLESS there are extenuating circumstances. Example one, we’re behind in our payments to Messico by billions. But it was more important to America to address our own costs of billions in flood and hurricane damage. Messico can wait. Example two, if we allocate a billion for Messico this month, and they declare war on us in August, or it’s discovered last year’s billion went into the cartels pockets, there is no law that says we have to give them any additional allocated billion by September.

And, since we’re at the calculating board, since Ukraine and Russia are signing a cease-fire, then where’s our refund of funds not spent directly on war? And why are we sending more money for a war that isn’t happening?

[Chgogal]

Thanks for the info.

[Swordmaker]

There is no law that requires budgeted funds be expended. The only rush to spend budgeted funds is the concept of zero based budgeting where the starting point for a new budget for any Department or agency is what was actually spent in the previous fiscal year. . . the zero base. No bureaucrat wants to be trying for an increase in their budget starting from less than the previous year’s budget amount, so they desperately scramble to expend every penny budgeted, and more, if possible to start the budget amount as high as possible!

The President has the authority, especially in Foreign Affairs, to withhold allocated funds if he deems it advisable to do so, otherwise the House of Representatives would be unconstitutionally in charge of Foreign Affairs by simply ordering spending not approved by the president’s foreign policy.

[wastedyears]

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you.

[ctdonath2]

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.

[jimfree]

What somebody “worried” about is not relevant.

[Svartalfiar]

Sept. 30, 2019 - The deadline for all 2019 federal spending, by which time all the Ukraine aid was supposed to be disbursed, or it would be automatically cancelled.

So how does this part work with the "he MUST spend it" part? If the Executive is required to spend all funds appropriated, then why would there be any auto-cancel clause? I don;t know all the relevant law sections, but the simple fact that if it's not spent then it's cancelled, tells me there's a decent bit of leeway for the Executive to not spend all of the funds. Whether the deadline for spending was extended or not is somewhat irrelevant to even having to spend it all in the first place.

[Fledermaus]

Lies

[Political Junkie Too]

What I don't understand is that when Obama took Arizona to court over their enforcement of immigration laws that Obama refused to enforce, we were told that Arizona was taking away the President's discretion to refuse to enforce a law.

Now with Ukraine, we're to believe that the President does not have discretion to refuse to enforce a law?

-PJ