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

2aguy

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2014
111,895
52,168
2,290
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
upload_2020-1-16_14-49-58.png
 
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:
 
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.
 
Now they are going after Nick Malvany lol
JC Democrats get over it you lost 2016
 
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.
 
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:
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top