What's new

No...Trump didn't break the law with Ukraine funds...so stop drooling, left wingers

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,111
Reaction score
14,578
Points
2,180
No....Trump didn't break the law, but it is now obvious that democrat party activists work in the GAO...releasing this the same day Trump signs the huge Trade deal with Mexico and Canada...

GAO: Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act in hold on Ukraine aid

Read the whole report, however, and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle:

For fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $250 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). Pub. L. No. 115-245, § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044–45. The funds were available “to provide assistance, including training; equipment; lethal assistance; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine.” Id. § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044. The appropriation made the funds available for obligation through September 30, 2019.
----

GAO rebukes the Trump administration for issuing a series of orders making the funds temporarily unavailable without any explanations for why. Had the administration not spent the funds at all, it would have been required to send a “special message” to Congress within 15 days of that decision to allow for both chambers to take action on it. The GAO also argues that those decisions have to be based on “programmatic” issues rather than policy decisions, which they mean temporary issues with the programs and processes themselves rather than policy opposition to them. That, however, is not found in the text of the ICA; in fact, it doesn’t place any effective limitation on the reason for such rescissions, emphasis mine:
------

The very text of the ICA envisions such rescissions taken for reasons of “fiscal policy or other reasons,” and has no explicit limitation on reasons being “programmatic.” It even explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of canceling “authorized projects,” which is the opposite of the GAO’s definition of “programmatic.” The ICA does require the president/administration to notify Congress of those decisions, but only when the money won’t be spent within the fiscal year.

And the key......

In this case, the money did get spent within the budget year. The aid may not have gone out as quickly as Congress intended or as the administration first planned, but as long as it got spent, there’s no violation.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,111
Reaction score
14,578
Points
2,180
And the other point?

Even if it did, though, Congress proposed the remedy for such failures within the ICA itself, as I noted last month when the issue first got raised. The remedy is to sue the administration to force it to spend the funds, not to criminally prosecute the president over it, emphases mine:
-----

Under the agreement of both the executive and legislative branches in 1974, this is a civil matter, not a “high crime or misdemeanor.” It’s an absurdly picayune basis for removing an elected president, the head of a co-equal branch of government.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
11,186
Reaction score
1,860
Points
290
Under the agreement of both the executive and legislative branches in 1974, this is a civil matter, not a “high crime or misdemeanor.” It’s an absurdly picayune basis for removing an elected president, the head of a co-equal branch of government.
Like I said....the desperation reeks among the "smart" party that is now digging it's own grave.
I am very confident Jay Sekulow had all bases covered before the other team could even get off
the bench.
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
36,663
Reaction score
8,740
Points
1,360
So, someone at GAO gave the Dems a talking point, which really isn’t... I wonder what they were promised or threatened with...
The biggest scandal is...
Sooo, if we find corruption, but money has been allocated to a country, it must go to them by a certain date regardless? Something is horrifically wrong with this picture.
 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
45,496
Reaction score
9,060
Points
2,060
No....Trump didn't break the law, but it is now obvious that democrat party activists work in the GAO...releasing this the same day Trump signs the huge Trade deal with Mexico and Canada...

GAO: Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act in hold on Ukraine aid

Read the whole report, however, and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle:

For fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $250 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). Pub. L. No. 115-245, § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044–45. The funds were available “to provide assistance, including training; equipment; lethal assistance; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine.” Id. § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044. The appropriation made the funds available for obligation through September 30, 2019.
----

GAO rebukes the Trump administration for issuing a series of orders making the funds temporarily unavailable without any explanations for why. Had the administration not spent the funds at all, it would have been required to send a “special message” to Congress within 15 days of that decision to allow for both chambers to take action on it. The GAO also argues that those decisions have to be based on “programmatic” issues rather than policy decisions, which they mean temporary issues with the programs and processes themselves rather than policy opposition to them. That, however, is not found in the text of the ICA; in fact, it doesn’t place any effective limitation on the reason for such rescissions, emphasis mine:
------

The very text of the ICA envisions such rescissions taken for reasons of “fiscal policy or other reasons,” and has no explicit limitation on reasons being “programmatic.” It even explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of canceling “authorized projects,” which is the opposite of the GAO’s definition of “programmatic.” The ICA does require the president/administration to notify Congress of those decisions, but only when the money won’t be spent within the fiscal year.

And the key......

In this case, the money did get spent within the budget year. The aid may not have gone out as quickly as Congress intended or as the administration first planned, but as long as it got spent, there’s no violation.
In any case, it's not a high crime or misdemeanor.
 

Augustine_

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
2,058
Reaction score
166
Points
75
Location
Nunya
No....Trump didn't break the law, but it is now obvious that democrat party activists work in the GAO...releasing this the same day Trump signs the huge Trade deal with Mexico and Canada...

GAO: Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act in hold on Ukraine aid

Read the whole report, however, and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle:

For fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $250 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). Pub. L. No. 115-245, § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044–45. The funds were available “to provide assistance, including training; equipment; lethal assistance; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine.” Id. § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044. The appropriation made the funds available for obligation through September 30, 2019.
----

GAO rebukes the Trump administration for issuing a series of orders making the funds temporarily unavailable without any explanations for why. Had the administration not spent the funds at all, it would have been required to send a “special message” to Congress within 15 days of that decision to allow for both chambers to take action on it. The GAO also argues that those decisions have to be based on “programmatic” issues rather than policy decisions, which they mean temporary issues with the programs and processes themselves rather than policy opposition to them. That, however, is not found in the text of the ICA; in fact, it doesn’t place any effective limitation on the reason for such rescissions, emphasis mine:
------

The very text of the ICA envisions such rescissions taken for reasons of “fiscal policy or other reasons,” and has no explicit limitation on reasons being “programmatic.” It even explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of canceling “authorized projects,” which is the opposite of the GAO’s definition of “programmatic.” The ICA does require the president/administration to notify Congress of those decisions, but only when the money won’t be spent within the fiscal year.

And the key......

In this case, the money did get spent within the budget year. The aid may not have gone out as quickly as Congress intended or as the administration first planned, but as long as it got spent, there’s no violation.
LOLOLOL Trump broke the law, but REALLY what matters is this small little footnote that in no way shows that Trump did not break the law :lmao:
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
11,186
Reaction score
1,860
Points
290
LOLOLOL Trump broke the law, but REALLY what matters is this small little footnote that in no way shows that Trump did not break the law
LOLOLOLOL Show everyone, Brainiac, where Trump broke the law.
Hitch up your adult diapers and show us you are a big boy.
 

Jitss617

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
27,191
Reaction score
2,443
Points
275
Now they are going after Nick Malvany lol
JC Democrats get over it you lost 2016
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
4,729
Reaction score
544
Points
165
No....Trump didn't break the law, but it is now obvious that democrat party activists work in the GAO...releasing this the same day Trump signs the huge Trade deal with Mexico and Canada...

GAO: Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act in hold on Ukraine aid

Read the whole report, however, and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle:

For fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $250 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). Pub. L. No. 115-245, § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044–45. The funds were available “to provide assistance, including training; equipment; lethal assistance; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine.” Id. § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044. The appropriation made the funds available for obligation through September 30, 2019.
----

GAO rebukes the Trump administration for issuing a series of orders making the funds temporarily unavailable without any explanations for why. Had the administration not spent the funds at all, it would have been required to send a “special message” to Congress within 15 days of that decision to allow for both chambers to take action on it. The GAO also argues that those decisions have to be based on “programmatic” issues rather than policy decisions, which they mean temporary issues with the programs and processes themselves rather than policy opposition to them. That, however, is not found in the text of the ICA; in fact, it doesn’t place any effective limitation on the reason for such rescissions, emphasis mine:
------

The very text of the ICA envisions such rescissions taken for reasons of “fiscal policy or other reasons,” and has no explicit limitation on reasons being “programmatic.” It even explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of canceling “authorized projects,” which is the opposite of the GAO’s definition of “programmatic.” The ICA does require the president/administration to notify Congress of those decisions, but only when the money won’t be spent within the fiscal year.

And the key......

In this case, the money did get spent within the budget year. The aid may not have gone out as quickly as Congress intended or as the administration first planned, but as long as it got spent, there’s no violation.
These fucking knuckleheads will literally parrot anything the left tells them to.
 

Augustine_

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
2,058
Reaction score
166
Points
75
Location
Nunya
LOLOLOL Trump broke the law, but REALLY what matters is this small little footnote that in no way shows that Trump did not break the law
LOLOLOLOL Show everyone, Brainiac, where Trump broke the law.
Hitch up your adult diapers and show us you are a big boy.
Commenting on a topic that you haven't even read about? The link is in the OP, snowflake. If it's too hard, ask somebody to read it for you :itsok:
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
36,663
Reaction score
8,740
Points
1,360
LOLOLOL Trump broke the law, but REALLY what matters is this small little footnote that in no way shows that Trump did not break the law
LOLOLOLOL Show everyone, Brainiac, where Trump broke the law.
Hitch up your adult diapers and show us you are a big boy.
Commenting on a topic that you haven't even read about? The link is in the OP, snowflake. If it's too hard, ask somebody to read it for you :itsok:
It is an opinion piece. What don’t you understand about what an opinion is?
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
4,729
Reaction score
544
Points
165
No....Trump didn't break the law, but it is now obvious that democrat party activists work in the GAO...releasing this the same day Trump signs the huge Trade deal with Mexico and Canada...

GAO: Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act in hold on Ukraine aid

Read the whole report, however, and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle:

For fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $250 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). Pub. L. No. 115-245, § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044–45. The funds were available “to provide assistance, including training; equipment; lethal assistance; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine.” Id. § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044. The appropriation made the funds available for obligation through September 30, 2019.
----

GAO rebukes the Trump administration for issuing a series of orders making the funds temporarily unavailable without any explanations for why. Had the administration not spent the funds at all, it would have been required to send a “special message” to Congress within 15 days of that decision to allow for both chambers to take action on it. The GAO also argues that those decisions have to be based on “programmatic” issues rather than policy decisions, which they mean temporary issues with the programs and processes themselves rather than policy opposition to them. That, however, is not found in the text of the ICA; in fact, it doesn’t place any effective limitation on the reason for such rescissions, emphasis mine:
------

The very text of the ICA envisions such rescissions taken for reasons of “fiscal policy or other reasons,” and has no explicit limitation on reasons being “programmatic.” It even explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of canceling “authorized projects,” which is the opposite of the GAO’s definition of “programmatic.” The ICA does require the president/administration to notify Congress of those decisions, but only when the money won’t be spent within the fiscal year.

And the key......

In this case, the money did get spent within the budget year. The aid may not have gone out as quickly as Congress intended or as the administration first planned, but as long as it got spent, there’s no violation.
In any case, it's not a high crime or misdemeanor.

It's an opinion
Like vindman

We don't like the way the President does things
So we will cry
 

Lewdog

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
23,277
Reaction score
2,845
Points
290
Location
Williamsburg, KY
No....Trump didn't break the law, but it is now obvious that democrat party activists work in the GAO...releasing this the same day Trump signs the huge Trade deal with Mexico and Canada...

GAO: Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act in hold on Ukraine aid

Read the whole report, however, and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle:

For fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $250 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). Pub. L. No. 115-245, § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044–45. The funds were available “to provide assistance, including training; equipment; lethal assistance; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine.” Id. § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044. The appropriation made the funds available for obligation through September 30, 2019.
----

GAO rebukes the Trump administration for issuing a series of orders making the funds temporarily unavailable without any explanations for why. Had the administration not spent the funds at all, it would have been required to send a “special message” to Congress within 15 days of that decision to allow for both chambers to take action on it. The GAO also argues that those decisions have to be based on “programmatic” issues rather than policy decisions, which they mean temporary issues with the programs and processes themselves rather than policy opposition to them. That, however, is not found in the text of the ICA; in fact, it doesn’t place any effective limitation on the reason for such rescissions, emphasis mine:
------

The very text of the ICA envisions such rescissions taken for reasons of “fiscal policy or other reasons,” and has no explicit limitation on reasons being “programmatic.” It even explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of canceling “authorized projects,” which is the opposite of the GAO’s definition of “programmatic.” The ICA does require the president/administration to notify Congress of those decisions, but only when the money won’t be spent within the fiscal year.

And the key......

In this case, the money did get spent within the budget year. The aid may not have gone out as quickly as Congress intended or as the administration first planned, but as long as it got spent, there’s no violation.
In any case, it's not a high crime or misdemeanor.
The key piece of it is, executive privilege can not be used to stop a person from testifying if it involves a crime.
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
4,729
Reaction score
544
Points
165
So, someone at GAO gave the Dems a talking point, which really isn’t... I wonder what they were promised or threatened with...
The biggest scandal is...
Sooo, if we find corruption, but money has been allocated to a country, it must go to them by a certain date regardless? Something is horrifically wrong with this picture.

Every picture that the Democratics paint is wrong
It's their mantra.
 

Lewdog

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
23,277
Reaction score
2,845
Points
290
Location
Williamsburg, KY
No....Trump didn't break the law, but it is now obvious that democrat party activists work in the GAO...releasing this the same day Trump signs the huge Trade deal with Mexico and Canada...

GAO: Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act in hold on Ukraine aid

Read the whole report, however, and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle:

For fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $250 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). Pub. L. No. 115-245, § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044–45. The funds were available “to provide assistance, including training; equipment; lethal assistance; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine.” Id. § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044. The appropriation made the funds available for obligation through September 30, 2019.
----

GAO rebukes the Trump administration for issuing a series of orders making the funds temporarily unavailable without any explanations for why. Had the administration not spent the funds at all, it would have been required to send a “special message” to Congress within 15 days of that decision to allow for both chambers to take action on it. The GAO also argues that those decisions have to be based on “programmatic” issues rather than policy decisions, which they mean temporary issues with the programs and processes themselves rather than policy opposition to them. That, however, is not found in the text of the ICA; in fact, it doesn’t place any effective limitation on the reason for such rescissions, emphasis mine:
------

The very text of the ICA envisions such rescissions taken for reasons of “fiscal policy or other reasons,” and has no explicit limitation on reasons being “programmatic.” It even explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of canceling “authorized projects,” which is the opposite of the GAO’s definition of “programmatic.” The ICA does require the president/administration to notify Congress of those decisions, but only when the money won’t be spent within the fiscal year.

And the key......

In this case, the money did get spent within the budget year. The aid may not have gone out as quickly as Congress intended or as the administration first planned, but as long as it got spent, there’s no violation.
In any case, it's not a high crime or misdemeanor.

It's an opinion
Like vindman

We don't like the way the President does things
So we will cry
The GAO is not an opinion piece. They are non-partial political governmental agency used by Congress.
 

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
38,671
Reaction score
4,557
Points
1,130
the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year.
But they didn't spend it in time and Congress had to pass an extension to get the money to Ukraine, and there is still $35.2 million outstanding.
So yes Tramp DID break the law.
But you knew that already because the Right claim they know more than anyone else.
 

Active Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top