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

[22lcidw]

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.

What I know is what you say. And I do not believe you. We are living in a version of the 1960's TV movie..."Shadow on the Land". We are a soft tyranny police state with people like you falling in line for their masters. At least people like me recognize it and hope that we can regain some of our freedoms. If Trump is not going to do it do you really think any of those Prog candidates will? Obama added to our tyranny.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

I laugh at you

 

[edthecynic]

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.

What I know is what you say. And I do not believe you.

The Right NEVER believe the truth even when it is spoon fed to them because they are just too lazy to check anything for themselves.
The fact remains that Tramp did NOT get the money to Ukraine before the fiscal year ended and Congress DID pass an extension to get the money to Ukraine and $30.2 million earmarked for grenade launchers, secure communications and naval combat craft is still outstanding.

As much as you hate the truth, you are probably lazy and afraid to click on the link.
Ukraine military aid extension passes US House after White House delay
WASHINGTON―The U.S. House on Thursday passed legislation to make sure Ukraine can spend $250 million in military aid after White House delayed it this summer.

The language was among provisions tacked to a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown through Nov. 21 to buy more time for Congress’s spending negotiations. The Senate is expected to take up and pass the stopgap spending bill as-is next week.

The bill would extend for another year funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative that would otherwise expire after Sept. 30.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

What I know is what you say. And I do not believe you.

The Right NEVER believe the truth even when it is spoon fed to them because they are just too lazy to check anything for themselves.
The fact remains that Tramp did NOT get the money to Ukraine before the fiscal year ended and Congress DID pass an extension to get the money to Ukraine and $30.2 million earmarked for grenade launchers, secure communications and naval combat craft is still outstanding.

As much as you hate the truth, you are probably lazy and afraid to click on the link.
Ukraine military aid extension passes US House after White House delay
WASHINGTON―The U.S. House on Thursday passed legislation to make sure Ukraine can spend $250 million in military aid after White House delayed it this summer.

The language was among provisions tacked to a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown through Nov. 21 to buy more time for Congress’s spending negotiations. The Senate is expected to take up and pass the stopgap spending bill as-is next week.

The bill would extend for another year funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative that would otherwise expire after Sept. 30.

Even if that were true, it does not reach the level of high crime or misdemeanor.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

What I know is what you say. And I do not believe you.

The Right NEVER believe the truth even when it is spoon fed to them because they are just too lazy to check anything for themselves.
The fact remains that Tramp did NOT get the money to Ukraine before the fiscal year ended and Congress DID pass an extension to get the money to Ukraine and $30.2 million earmarked for grenade launchers, secure communications and naval combat craft is still outstanding.

As much as you hate the truth, you are probably lazy and afraid to click on the link.
Ukraine military aid extension passes US House after White House delay
WASHINGTON―The U.S. House on Thursday passed legislation to make sure Ukraine can spend $250 million in military aid after White House delayed it this summer.

The language was among provisions tacked to a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown through Nov. 21 to buy more time for Congress’s spending negotiations. The Senate is expected to take up and pass the stopgap spending bill as-is next week.

The bill would extend for another year funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative that would otherwise expire after Sept. 30.

Even if that were true, it does not reach the level of high crime or misdemeanor.

What do you mean IF that were true?
What does it take to get you liars to admit the truth???
Here is the actual law;
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr4378/BILLS-116hr4378ih.pdf
Section 124. Extension of Funding for Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
Summary:
Section 124 extends for another year funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative that would otherwise expire after September 30.
Law as written;
15 (b) In addition to the amount otherwise provided by 16 section 101 for the ‘‘Ukraine Security Assistance Initia17 tive’’, there is appropriated on September 30, 2019, for 18 an additional amount for fiscal year 2019, an amount 19 equal to the unobligated balances rescinded pursuant to 20 subsection (a) of this section: Provided, That amounts 21 made available pursuant to this subsection shall remain 22 available until September 30, 2020, and shall be available 23 for the same purposes and under the same authorities for 24 which they were originally provided in Public Law 115– 25 245: Provided further, That such amount is designated by VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:40 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4378.IH H4378 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS 16 •HR 4378 IH 1 the Congress as being for Overseas Contingency Oper2 ations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 3 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 4 Deficit Control Act of 1985.
5 (c) This section shall become effective immediately 6 upon enactment of this Act. 7 (d) If this Act is enacted after September 30, 2019, 8 or if the designation in subsection 114(b) occurs after Sep9 tember 30, 2019, this section shall be applied as if it were 10 in effect on September 30, 2019.

 

[edthecynic]

Even if that were true, it does not reach the level of high crime or misdemeanor.

I see, so committing a crime is not at least a misdemeanor when a Republiscum does it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Even if that were true, it does not reach the level of high crime or misdemeanor.

I see, so committing a crime is not at least a misdemeanor when a Republiscum does it.

Watch and learn.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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

When you consistently refer to a footnote you might want to post it so others can see it.
Did you see the post all around that footnote that refuted it flatly?
Ask somebody to read it for you.

 

[candycorn]

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

Its clear he broke the law. Anyone who can read would come to that conclusion.

It won't matter in the least. The Senate isn't going to remove him from office.

 

[theHawk]

This is their Hail Mary in order for Piglosi to usurp the Presidency. They are hoping to bully and blackmail some GOP Senators, or even more pathetic they are hoping President Trump will resign.

 

[2aguy]

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

What footnote, you dumb ass......the act states there isn't a violation if the money is spent in the fiscal year it is put out...and it was.....so there was no violation of any kind.....and had it not been spent, the fix was for congress to sue the executive branch to spend the money...

This is another example of a government agency attacking the President with a fake scandal....heads should roll over this.

 

[2aguy]

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

Its clear he broke the law. Anyone who can read would come to that conclusion.

It won't matter in the least. The Senate isn't going to remove him from office.

How is that clear....

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:
-----
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.

What part of that is too hard for you to understand...?

 

[2aguy]

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.

There was no crime, so executive priviledge stands...you dope.

 

[2aguy]

Show everyone, Brainiac, where Trump broke the law.

As a know-it-all you already know Tramp violated the
Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

No, he didn't, as the link in the first act shows......try reading it...

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.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Wrong, you dope.....as the link points out....

And had the money not gone out in time, the procedure is for congress to sue the executive branch to tell them to spend the money.....no law was broken no matter how badly you want to have a Trump Impeachment Orgasm...

 

[edthecynic]

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:
-----
In this case, the money did get spent within the budget year.

That is, of course, a LIE.
The money was NOT spent by the end of the fiscal year 2019, forcing Congress to pass a law in the continuing resolution to EXTEND the time into the 2020 fiscal year. $30.2 million still has not been sent to Ukraine.
But you knew that already when you posted your lie.

 

[LoneLaugher]

He was just trying to stop corruption in Ukraine before we gave them money.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Wrong, you dope.....as the link points out....

And had the money not gone out in time, the procedure is for congress to sue the executive branch to tell them to spend the money.....no law was broken no matter how badly you want to have a Trump Impeachment Orgasm...

Repeating your lie does not make it any less a lie, it only makes you a serial liar.
I have already posted in this very thread the link to the law that extended the time to send the money to Ukraine into Fiscal year 2020 because the money was NOT sent to Ukraine by the end of the fiscal year 2019.
So it is undeniable that lying POS Tramp DID violate the the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
But you fellow Tramp lying scum will still deny it!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Show everyone, Brainiac, where Trump broke the law.

As a know-it-all you already know Tramp violated the
Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

No, he didn't, as the link in the first act shows......try reading it...

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.

No matter how many times you mindlessly parrot this lie, it will NEVER be the truth!!
So please explain, if the money was actually sent to Ukraine before the end of fiscal year 2019, why did Congress have to pass a law in the continuing resolution extending the time to send the money to Ukraine to fiscal year2020?????
Lie your way out of that one!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

That is, of course, a LIE.
The money was NOT spent by the end of the fiscal year 2019, forcing Congress to pass a law in the continuing resolution to EXTEND the time into the 2020 fiscal year. $30.2 million still has not been sent to Ukraine.
But you knew that already when you posted your lie.

Go **** yourself! The end of fiscal year 2019 was September 30 and Trump released funds on September 11, 2019.
In fact this Bloomberg citation says the State Department released $14i1 million dollars to Ukraine even earlier that that.
State Department Freed Ukraine Money Before Trump Says He Did

You got nothing but lies, idiot! Cite what you claim for once.