Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Halfswede

It is up to a legal case to determine whether it actually violated the impound control act vs potentially

Would you consider a Senate Impeachment Trial a good enough legal case to decide this?

yep
good luck with the 67 votes

math and all......

originally posted by: SammyB0476
a reply to: Sillyolme


Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Just wondering for a friend

About as tired as we get from winning.

a reply to: LSU2018
lots of winning your way recently
congrats
good luck on monday

a reply to: Sillyolme

Consistent how? No one knew why except for the handful who already testified that it was to get political dirt on Biden.

He was not investigating corruption.

That's not true. Both the whistleblower and Bill Taylor cited a NYT article as to why they presumed Trump was trying to get political dirt on Biden. That NYT article (written by the same journalist who did the politico Ukraine/DNC meddling article) presented no proof of such motives. It was all presumption. But presumption is not fact. Presumptions are hunches, feelings, guessing. In other words, the notion that Trump wanted to get political dirt on Biden is fabricated from thin air. And this fabrication is ruinous for the impeachment case.

But the only one who does know Trump's motives—Trump himself—has been consistent about Ukraine corruption and the EU's lack of help.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

U.S. defense contractors were worried about delayed contracts

I am quite sure they are worried about delayed funding. I think that what is being uncovered was well worth the delay.
Sworn testimonies from people of the Nation that this entire Circus was built around will be very hard to beat in a legal battle.

a reply to: grey580

en.wikipedia.org... link to wiki on the actual law

The Byrd Rule Further information: Reconciliation (United States Congress) The limitation on debate that prevents a budget reconciliation bill from being filibustered in the Senate (requiring a three-fifths vote to end debate) led to frequent attempts to attach amendments unrelated to the budget to the reconciliation bills. In response, the budget reconciliation acts of 1985, 1986, and 1990 adopted the "Byrd Rule" (Section 313 of the Budget Act).[1] The Byrd Rule allows Senators to raise points of order (which can be waived by a three-fifths majority of Senators[2]) against provisions in the reconciliation bills that are "extraneous."[3] Provisions are considered extraneous if they: do not produce a change in outlays or revenues; produce changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision; are outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure; increase outlays or decrease revenue if the provision's title, as a whole, fails to achieve the Senate reporting committee's reconciliation instructions; increase net outlays or decrease revenue during a fiscal year after the years covered by the reconciliation bill unless the provision's title, as a whole, remains budget neutral; or contain recommendations regarding the OASDI (social security) trust funds.

so there is that but if im reading this right it gives oversight to the senate not the house>?

from same source

Impoundment Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request, and has ignored most Presidential requests.[4] In response, some[who?] have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds. The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment.[5] In late November 2019, the obscure Impoundment Control Act made news during the Trump impeachment investigation, as two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the hold of approved Ukraine military funds. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to Michael Duffey, a political appointee.[6][7][8][9]

and links to the case law it cites en.wikipedia.org... which its self was related to domestic funds for environmental protection funds not international ones not sure it matters but there is this

The case arose from facts which pre-date the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, though the case was argued after the passing of the 1974 Act. The case showed that the presidential power of impoundment, even without the 1974 Act, was limited by a fair reading of the words Congress chose in its appropriation act. The President is required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which budget authority is provided by the United States Congress. In this case, the President could not order the impoundment of substantial amounts of environmental protection funds for a program he had vetoed, and which Congress had overridden. This finding closed a potential loophole in the Act.

so if it only effects envioronmental protection funds it may not apply in this case


this is from the house on the matter budget.house.gov...

Deferrals The ICA defines a “deferral” as withholding, delaying, or – through other Executive action or inaction – effectively precluding funding from being obligated or spent. The ICA prescribes three narrow circumstances in which the President may propose to defer funding for a program: (1) providing for contingencies; (2) achieving budgetary savings made possible through improved operational efficiency; and (3) as specifically provided by law. The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed deferral; the reasons for it; and the period of the proposed deferral. Upon transmission of such special message, the funds may be deferred without further action by Congress; however, the deferral cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message is sent. The ICA language on deferrals is long-standing budget law that allows the Executive branch to delay the obligation or expenditure of funding only for the specified reasons rather than policy reasons.

in an earlier paragraph it talks about the time window of 45 legislative days (so i would assume they dont count sundays/saturdays and holidays) and it seems the hold was started on july 3rd at the earliest and lifted on the 11th of September only two holidays fell in that time period during weekdays (the 4th of July,and labor day on the 2nd of September) for a total of 49? days total(again not counting holidays and weekends) but what days was congress actually in session during that time period ?


www.congress.gov... using this calendar there were 31 one days of "session" between when the aid was held up and then eventually released which seems on paper to at least let trump have Narrowly dodged the 45 day threshold of the aforementioned acts limits of 45 legislative days meaning that Technically he did not violate the provisions ,with the only wildcard being did he send the letter informing them of such ,which id assume could be explained by a simple paperwork error or at least that is what the white house will most likely argue

if you note most of the articles talking about this are just counting days not days congress is in session which is how the act is interpreted "the President may withhold certain funding in the affected accounts for up to 45 legislative session days."

and lastly and most likely the key to trumps defense from politifact www.politifact.com...

If the president is only asking to temporarily delay spending, then congressional approval is not required. But the president still has to send Congress a "special message" to let it know. There are other requirements, too. For example, the act says a request to delay spending is "permissible" only if the hold provides for unforeseen contingencies, saves money or is specifically provided by law. Spending cannot be stalled through the end of the fiscal year, either.

so he has to say it as temporary and the Ukrainian alleged corruption was "unforeseen contingencies" that he wanted looked into ,and as they got their money it would seem he once again was Technically in the right if barely as the footnotes mention

contiunues on the foot notes www.politifact.com...

Instead, the OMB implemented the hold on aid to Ukraine through footnotes in a series of funding documents, known as apportionments, sent to the Defense Department. The footnote in the first document, sent July 25, said the Pentagon couldn’t spend the money until Aug. 5. A second line in the footnote said the "brief pause in obligations" would not prevent the Pentagon from disbursing the funds before they expired. That was meant to get "to the heart of that issue about ensuring that we don’t run afoul of the Impoundment Control Act, which means that you have to allow for the timely execution," Sandy said in his testimony.

so temp delay vs permanent one and again

After the first document was sent, Michael Duffey, a Trump-appointed OMB official, told Sandy he would handle the apportionments going forward. In subsequent documents, Duffey continued to delay the scheduled release date for the aid until the hold was ultimately lifted on Sept. 11.

from same source this would imply the onus for continuing the hold was on duffy at this point not the president even if he knew it was what trump had wanted but not explicitly ordered with one final snippit being the crux of the issue

Experts told us the fact that the aid was eventually released complicates the issue slightly. "I have every reason to think Trump and his aides violated the statute," said Louis Fisher, visiting professor at William & Mary Law School and author of a book on presidential spending powers. "Of course, the funds were eventually released." The report notes that roughly $35 million of aid to Ukraine remained unspent as the end of the fiscal year approached. As a result, Congress passed a bill on Sept. 27 — three days before that money was set to expire — to make sure that the $35 million could still be spent. Pfiffner, the George Mason University professor, told us that while there "seems to have been a post hoc rationalization for delaying the Ukraine funds," it would be up to a court to decide whether the near-expiration of that $35 million would constitute a violation. The hold was lifted on Sept. 11, with some time left in the year to distribute the frozen funds.It might be argued that the law would not actually be broken until Oct. 1, the beginning of the (2020) fiscal year," he said. "But the DOD and OMB career people know what time is necessary to actually transfer the funds, and had legitimate concerns about violating the law."

so had they not approved the rest of the aid with time to fulfill the time line of 45 legislative days then yes he could very well be in trouble but because they did it would now be up to the federal courts to decide if he violated it or not so it seems the dems saved trump from him self on the matter this time and any further questions about legality is up to the federal and likely SCOTUS courts ,not the house ,the media or public opinion

originally posted by: Sillyolme
No we don't. You know the lie Giuliani wants you to believe.

We already know what went on and why. If the senate doesn't do their jobs they deserve to lose them and they will.

You need to upgrade. May I suggest.

www.defensenews.com...

Defense News has learned that OMB made the hold official through an apportionment document it distributed internally on July 25, the same day as the controversial call between Trump and Zelenskiy―though a senior administration official on Thursday said the date was a coincidence. It was earlier that Trump asked then-National Security Advisor John Bolton and Defense Secretary Mark Esper to look into whether allies are paying their fair share and whether the account was serving U.S. interests, the official said.

am unsure if this would match the "notifying congress portion of the act" but it seems they were made aware of it with in the 45 legislative days window ,and from the bulk of what im reading it seems the office of OMB may be the one falling on its sword so to speak for this one as the next link talks about

www.rollcall.com...

While the hold on the fiscal 2019 funds caused delays, administration officials said they were told most of the funding could not be obligated until near the end of the fiscal year anyway. That’s not entirely unusual, and OMB told Pentagon officials to continue planning for how to obligate the funds during the freeze. A senior administration official, who agreed to speak candidly on the condition of anonymity, says OMB put the hold on the Ukraine aid on Trump’s order. A subsequent review by top White House officials including then-National Security Adviser John Bolton took longer than expected, and the hold was extended several times, according to the official. After money is appropriated by Congress, OMB provides agencies with direction on how quickly to spend it, in a process called apportionment.

now the ever familiar "un named sources say" line comes back up ,and again seeming to imply that bolton was at least partially responsible for the "extended delays" second snippit

Key events in the administration’s blocking of aid to Ukraine Feb. 28: The Pentagon notifies Congress that Ukraine has met the conditions to receive the first batch of fiscal 2019 security assistance, $125 million. The aid includes sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and counter-artillery radars. May 23: In a follow-up to the earlier notification, the Pentagon tells Congress that Ukraine has met the requirements for the remaining $125 million in assistance, including taking action “to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability, and sustaining improvements of combat capability enabled by U.S. assistance.” July 18: OMB places a verbal hold on $391.5 million in Ukraine aid, including the $250 million in security assistance and $141.5 million in Foreign Military Financing funds. FMF aid comes in the form of grants or loans that are used to purchase U.S. weapons, equipment or training. An unnamed OMB staffer informs a group of administration officials on a call that day that the aid would be held up, with no explanation given other than the order came from the White House, former U.S. envoy to Ukraine Bill Taylor tells House investigators Oct. 22. July 25: The hold on the $250 million in security assistance is formalized through what is known as apportionment that freezes the funds, approved by a career official. On the same day, Trump and Zelenskiy have the phone call that launches the impeachment inquiry. Aug. 3: Duffey signs his first apportionment, a separate process that freezes 10 State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development accounts. A portion of the Ukraine FMF funds — $26.5 million — is included in the freeze. Officials at the time and in recent interviews say the holdup is due to a broader concern about wasted foreign aid dollars and the propensity of program managers to sit on appropriated funds until the end of the fiscal year before making grants or signing contracts, a process known as obligating the money. Aug. 5: The initial hold on the $250 million security assistance expires and is renewed by Duffey. Aug. 9: The OMB releases the State Department and USAID funds — but not the Ukraine money — after receiving information from the agencies about unobligated balances remaining in the accounts. The White House at this time is considering a rescission of unspent funds, but ultimately backs off due to heavy opposition within Congress and parts of the administration. The OMB continues to slow the obligation of funds, however, in a manner that makes it more difficult for State and USAID to get the money out the door before the end of fiscal 2019. Sept. 11: State notifies Congress the $141.5 million in FMF money for Ukraine is ready to be obligated. Sept. 12: OMB lifts the holds on the $141.5 million in FMF and the $250 million in security assistance. Sept. 27: The House Budget and Appropriations committees write to OMB requesting answers and documents related to the withholding of Ukraine aid, State and USAID funds and changes in apportionment procedure. On the same day, Trump signs a measure to temporarily extend fiscal 2019 funding to Nov. 21, which also extends the deadline to obligate the $250 million in security assistance to Sept. 30, 2020. Sept. 30: The full $141.5 million in FMF has been obligated by the end of the fiscal year deadline. Most of the $250 million security assistance also had been obligated.

so barely in time for the deadline but still with it in while the OMB dragged its heels so to speak but all BARELY happened with in the alloyed time frame for a president to TEMPORARILY with hold aid

a reply to: CitizenZero

But the only one who does know Trump's motives—Trump himself—has been consistent about Ukraine corruption and the EU's lack of help.

It seems he should come down and take the stand and clear some things up then. I mean, Hillary Clinton had no problem testifying under oath for 11 hours under a hostile Republican panel..

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Bravo! Thank you!!!

That was some excellent research and clearly explained and presented. Much appreciated.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Halfswede

Would you consider a Senate Impeachment Trial a good enough legal case to decide this?

I would... and that's exactly why I don't expect it to happen. Mitch could have already gotten started on it if he were so inclined. But he's not, because no one wants the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to come out.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Halfswede

It is up to a legal case to determine whether it actually violated the impound control act vs potentially

Would you consider a Senate Impeachment Trial a good enough legal case to decide this?

It would if violating the Impoundment Control Act were even remotely a high crime or misdemeanor, or even mentioned in the articles of impeachment. As it stands, they aren't charging him with that, so the legal case would be up to a court filing to initiate an injunction and then the legality of it is tried in the actual courts, not the Senate.

Even if it was the basis for an impeachment article, the Senate does not deal with legal interpretation, just whether they see removal as fitting due to the presented articles and evidence, it is a vote by an extra-legal entity. The courts and finally the supreme court would be the ones to determine violation of an Act.

Trump only held the paperwork for a little over a month, it was not that big of a deal. If the government has money for us, you have to wait for it a long time before you get it some times, a month is nothing. Two months is nothing.

The money was approved, that money only guaranteed a loan and the Ukraine would not have to worry about their creditors if the money was on the way. The Democrats make it sound that this is an abnormal thing, anyone who has dealt with our government knows it takes a long time to get your money. That timeframe is not unusual, I do not know why anyone in government would even be questioning it, unless of course they screwed up their part of the job that delayed it....so they blame it on Trump.

The Ukraine government did not complain at all about this payment being a little late. Only the Democrats are complaining because Orange Man did not give it as soon as they got it. A president who rushes giving away our money, I would not want running our country.

originally posted by: Halfswede
Maybe you missed it, but the president hasn't in any way indicated that he didn't direct the hold. In fact, he has admitted it on several occasions and gave the reasons for it. It is up to a legal case to determine whether it actually violated the impound control act vs potentially -- similar to the legal challenge to the wall funds.

Ummm, am I missing something? Was Trump Impeached for violating the Impound Control Act? I don't recall seeing or hearing any mention of that in the entire impeachment charade - er - process.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Halfswede

It is up to a legal case to determine whether it actually violated the impound control act vs potentially

Would you consider a Senate Impeachment Trial a good enough legal case to decide this?

Maybe, but there is just one little problem.

Neither of the two Articles of Impeachment have anything to do with violating the 'Impound Control Act'.

a reply to: shooterbrody

So in your understanding an impeachment trial WOULD be a legal trial on these issues. Thanks.

a reply to: Halfswede

That was an informative reply. Thanks. Do you think that prat of Pelosi's delay could be due to her waiting to add more charges, that is stuff like this?

a reply to: tanstaafl

I have heard talk about the reason for the delay was that there might be additional charges added to the list. What do you think about that possiblity?

a reply to: Xcalibur254
I never knew so many people cared about Ukraine so much. Where we're all of you when Russia took control of Crimeria and the East Half of Ukraine under Obama's watch. You were criticizing him for his lack of lethal aid then, Right?

....or was Ukraine too full of Corruption back then to do that?

My memory is a little fuzzy