But nothing in government happens instantly. Because there was no deadline, Trump's disbursement of the taxpayer's donation to Ukraine could not be late

No Deadline Existed in Trump's Brief Delay of Ukraine Funds

Did President Donald Trump withhold our donations of military assistance to Ukraine as leverage in a July 25, 2019, phone call to get Ukraine to investigate criminal activity by Team Obama in 2013-2015 and interference in the 2015-2016 United States presidential election? Throughout Adam Schiff’s Impeachment Theater, one Obama hold-over and life-long diplomat after another testified that it is wrong to call for an investigation of potential crimes possibly committed by U.S. citizens which spread across both countries. We are ordered that we must feel “troubled” by that.

How could diplomats covering Ukraine or even stationed in Ukraine have no idea that there is a treaty on this very topic? None of these “experts” are aware that the U.S.A. and Ukraine signed a treaty requiring exactly that. In previous articles at Canada Free Press: “Trump Urging Ukrainian Probe of Biden Breaks No Laws” and “QUID PRO FAUX: Treaty Invalidates Impeachment”, we saw how Trump’s congratulatory phone call to newly-elected President of the Ukraine Vlodymyr Zelensky could not be a quid-pro-quo because of the “Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters,” that President William Clinton negotiated. The U.S. Senate ratified it in 2000, before Clinton left office. How could diplomats covering Ukraine or even stationed in Ukraine have no idea that there is a treaty on this very topic? They were outraged that Trump asked another nation to investigate a U.S. citizen. That’s what the treaty says. But mainly they accuse that Trump was required to disburse funds for military assistance to the Ukraine appropriated by Congress. But the brief 58-day review by Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney violated no law or regulation. The accusation assumes that there was some specific day of the year on which the money was supposed to be processed. The fiscal year ends on September 30. There is no particular day within the fiscal year when Trump was required to cut a check. Federal funds don’t get spent the moment Congress passes an appropriations bill or a President signs it. Money for Ukraine “obligated” up to midnight on September 30 is just as timely as on any other day in the fiscal year. No delay occurred within the concepts of government budgeting, because no deadline existed.

The President can take a second look at Ukraine’s eligibility to receive aid under U.S. anti-corruption laws Therefore, actually there is no delay if money is obligated by midnight at the end of the fiscal year on September 30. (In fact, I heard many stories while at Education of bureaucrats unplugging the clocks so they could keep spending money past midnight into the early hours of October 1. That was in the 80s when they mostly still used paper.) Your author has, with these very fingers, “committed” and “obligated” federal funds, by hitting “enter” on the computer terminal to actually send U.S. Treasury money to contractors and grantees. I worked in the Executive Office of a tiny agency in the U.S. Department of Education with the wonderfully-bureaucratic name OBEMLA. (Organizational names change over time.) When I hit “enter,” the money was sometimes not actually paid out to grantees or contractors for years. First, Treasury and OMB impose cash management limitations. Money flows in to the Treasury all throughout the year from income tax withholding. Treasury and OMB attempt to time expenditures to wait until tax revenues flow in to minimize the amount of borrowing throughout the year. Also there is processing required—including to ensure that dozens of laws, regulations, rules, and requirements are all met. Not until bureaucrats specializing in the process have literally checked all the boxes and reviewed every question is money ready to be disbursed. (We are referring here to details of implementation. This is not about disagreeing with Congress.)

Simply conducting a review, without reaching a decision, is not a “deferral” In this case, Ukraine had just been through years of political chaos, with a series of short administrations. A comedian with no government experience was just elected as the new President. Therefore, it was entirely reasonable to wait two months to figure out how lethal military aid would get used and whether the laws forbidding giving money to corrupt governments would prohibit the expenditure. We are instructed to accept that Ukraine had already been certified as making progress on its corruption problems. U.S. law would have stopped the money if not. But the President of the United States is not subordinate to bureaucrats. The President can take a second look at Ukraine’s eligibility to receive aid under U.S. anti-corruption laws. If the Trump Administration had officially decided against sending the money, only then would “the Budget Control and Impoundment Act” kick in. George Washington University of Law Professor Alan Morrison at Bloomberg Law scolds that Trump was required to file a request with Congress to rescind the appropriation or file a report that disbursement was deferred. Morrison is spinning. Simply conducting a review, without reaching a decision, is not a “deferral.” A deferral under the Act suggests carrying over funds from one fiscal year to the next, not mere processing delays or double-checking compliance. Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2014, while Barack Obama was President and Vice President Joe Biden was Obama’s point person for Ukraine. Europe, of course, just looked at the United States with that deer-in-the-headlights thing Europeans do and waited for Obama to handle it.





Because there was no deadline, Trump’s disbursement of the taxpayer’s donation to Ukraine could not be late Paul Krawak compiled an excellent time-line of some of these events in “How the OMB used its powers to delay Ukraine aid” published in Roll Call. Krawak reports: “The Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative was first established in fiscal 2016, and over its first three years received $600 million in appropriations from Congress.” Id. In Fiscal Year 2019 (which started October 1, 2018), President Trump requested $200 million for military assistance to Ukraine in Spring 2018. Congress added $50 million more. That $250 million was released to Ukraine in February 2019. In March 2019, the Trump Administration requested an additional $250 million, upping the military assistance to Ukraine to $500 million for FY 2019. An additional “$141.5 million in Foreign Military Financing overseen by the State Department” was appropriated. Id. Then on July 18, 2019, after a new President had been elected, OMB placed a verbal hold on the second tranche of $250 million as well as the $141.5 million in Foreign Military Financing funds through the State Department. Remember that federal funds are not released until the program office formally “obligates” them as the final step. Id.





OMB simultaneously lifted the hold on the remaining $250 million in lethal military aid to Ukraine Then on September, 11, 2019, the U.S. State Department formally certified that the $141.5 million in Foreign Military Financing “is ready to be obligated.” Id. The next day, on September 12, 2019, after receiving notification that State was prepared to spend the money, OMB lifted the hold and allowed the $141.5 million in Foreign Military Financing to be obligated. OMB simultaneously lifted the hold on the remaining $250 million in lethal military aid to Ukraine. Id. The triggering event was when State told OMB on September 11 that it was ready to proceed with actually spending the money. A lot goes into that. While it is a clear legal principle—established by the “impoundment” controversy and court cases—that funds appropriated by Congress must be spent by the Executive Branch, that depends on the actual language used by Congress. But nothing in government happens instantly. Because there was no deadline, Trump’s disbursement of the taxpayer’s donation to Ukraine could not be late.

SHOW DISQUS COMMENTS