A simple question for every member of the House and Senate

[malaise]

Can the President withhold funds that are appropriated by the Legislative branch?

[jpak]

1. The answer is no

thanks to a Nixon Era law.

[lastlib]

2. Presidential Impoundment Act of 1974 says no.

Case closed.

Shitgibbon violated that law. Case closed.

[AncientGeezer]

6. Wasn't an "Impoundment" issue...Or Chairman Schiff would have hammered that.

Sure a couple of budget office staffers quit thinking it may be but Chr. Schiff and the legal staff he assembled never played that card.
I believe it's because it was a foreign aid delay as opposed to the dirty crap Nixon was trying to pull.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

40. Chairman Schiff definitely hammered that

See:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12737650

[AncientGeezer]

42. Not ONE link to Chr. Schiff....you tried...E for effort.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

43. obviously you didn't read one linked source

[AncientGeezer]

44. I always read links

[PJMcK]

3. There is no such thing as a simple question for Republicans

Consider that panel on TV recently where Trump's supporters were asked if they would continue to support Trump if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue. Their response was, "Why did he shoot them?"

The Republican jackasses in Congress and the Senate cannot answer your question. It's too complicated for them because of their conflicts.

[FBaggins]

4. Yes... he can

But it would have to be for a legitimate purpose.

[malaise]

5. Was this a legitimate purpose

NO

[FBaggins]

7. I assume not... but it makes the argument circular

If he withheld funds because he was concerned about corruption - then it wouldn’t be impoundment. If he withheld it to pressure them to dig up dirt, then it could be impoundment... but it wouldn’t matter because the deal is already impeachable.

IOW - claims that the withholding could be illegal under the 1974 law don’t add to the case.

[malaise]

8. Thanks

[Hermit-The-Prog]

9. he must notify Congress. he didn't.

[AncientGeezer]

10. No ..not really. Chairman Schiff would have made that an issue.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

12. yes, it's really the law ...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/683

2 U.S. Code § 683. Rescission of budget authority

(a) Transmittal of special messageWhenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons (including the termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided), or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation for such fiscal year, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message specifying—

(1) the amount of budget authority which he proposes to be rescinded or which is to be so reserved;

(2) any account, department, or establishment of the Government to which such budget authority is available for obligation, and the specific project or governmental functions involved;

(3) the reasons why the budget authority should be rescinded or is to be so reserved;

(4) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the proposed rescission or of the reservation; and

(5) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed rescission or the reservation and the decision to effect the proposed rescission or the reservation, and to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated effect of the proposed rescission or the reservation upon the objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget authority is provided.

(b) Requirement to make available for obligation

Any amount of budget authority proposed to be rescinded or that is to be reserved as set forth in such special message shall be made available for obligation unless, within the prescribed 45-day period, the Congress has completed action on a rescission bill rescinding all or part of the amount proposed to be rescinded or that is to be reserved. Funds made available for obligation under this procedure may not be proposed for rescission again.

See also:
The Role of OMB in Withholding Ukrainian Aid

[AncientGeezer]

15. It wasn't a recission....and that's what your citation relies on

[Hermit-The-Prog]

16. anything over 45 days would be a recission, a changing of the 'contract'

That's the law.

[AncientGeezer]

21. No....recission has a well defined leagal definition

Dumpster delayed foreign aid.....didn't rescind, didn't cancel, was granted during the appropriations cycle...and again...Chairman Schiff or the House committee legal team NEVER tried to play this card. Because it didn't apply.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

22. I don't know about "leagal" but your beliefs do not trump the law

[AncientGeezer]

26. You haven't cited applicable Law...there was no recission...and a spelling mistake, really?

Look up the definition of rescission...say the Senate's website...

"rescission - The cancellation of budget authority previously provided by Congress." There was no cancellation...

[Hermit-The-Prog]

29. ok, so I'm not a comedian,

Your misspelling somehow conjured up Legal Beagle in my mind (no, I can't explain it):



You still can't shoot me -- I can't play a piano, either.

The Orange Menace and his lackeys could have used either 683 or 684 to try to excuse withholding funds, but only if they submitted a special message to Congress. They didn't and therefore illegally withheld the funds.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

27. try reading the following, signed by Schiff, Engel, Cummings ...

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-10-07.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20to%20Vought-%20OMB%20re%20Subpoena.pdf

It includes the following statement, after laying out the only conditions under which the President is authorized to withhold the funds:

"The President is required to submit a special message to Congress with information about the proposed deferral of funds."

The linked PDF letter is signed,
Adam B. Schiff, Chairman, House Select Committee on Intelligence,
Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Reform

In footnote 12, it references 2 U.S.C. §684

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/684

2 U.S. Code § 684. Proposed deferrals of budget authority

(a) Transmittal of special messageWhenever the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of any department or agency of the United States, or any officer or employee of the United States proposes to defer any budget authority provided for a specific purpose or project, the President shall transmit to the House of Representatives and the Senate a special message specifying—

(1) the amount of the budget authority proposed to be deferred;
(2) any account, department, or establishment of the Government to which such budget authority is available for obligation, and the specific projects or governmental functions involved;
(3) the period of time during which the budget authority is proposed to be deferred;
(4) the reasons for the proposed deferral, including any legal authority invoked to justify the proposed deferral;
(5) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the proposed deferral; and
(6) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed deferral and the decision to effect the proposed deferral, including an analysis of such facts, circumstances, and considerations in terms of their application to any legal authority, including specific elements of legal authority, invoked to justify such proposed deferral, and to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated effect of the proposed deferral upon the objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget authority is provided.

A special message may include one or more proposed deferrals of budget authority. A deferral may not be proposed for any period of time extending beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message proposing the deferral is transmitted to the House and the Senate.

(b) Consistency with legislative policyDeferrals shall be permissible only—

(1) to provide for contingencies;
(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or
(3) as specifically provided by law.
No officer or employee of the United States may defer any budget authority for any other purpose.

(c) Exception

The provisions of this section do not apply to any budget authority proposed to be rescinded or that is to be reserved as set forth in a special message required to be transmitted under section 683 of this title.

Either 683 or 684 would provide an 'out' for Trump and OMB, but only if they submitted that special message as required. He didn't, OMB didn't, and therefore the withholding of the funds was illegal, regardless of whether or not it was abuse of power or a threat to national security, and regardless of the fact that the funds were eventually released.

[AncientGeezer]

28. Now it's deferrals...vastly different than recission..where are you going to land the goal posts?

I repeat....Chairman Schiff didn't use this in the the hearings did he?
It wasn't relevant..wasn't applicable. He didn't need to go in the weeds.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

30. the goalposts have not changed ...

Look at the OP: "Can the President withhold funds that are appropriated by the Legislative branch?"

The answer, in the case of the funding for Ukraine, is "not legally, without cause".

The hearings were about cause for impeachment over the reason the funds were withheld.

[StarfishSaver]

34. He didn't move the goalposts. That language is in the provision he cited

[AncientGeezer]

35. From recission to deferrals.....vastly different definitions ....you know that.

Different sections of the "provision" ..you know that.
Yet...neither is the issue here.....you also know that.

Chairman Schiff and his legal team Knows that.

[AncientGeezer]

24. Not anywhere near the Law....we didn't have a contract with Ukraine

The aid was a Congressional appropriation....and it was provided within the term of the appropriation cycle. Never canceled

Look up the definition of rescission.... what you will find in every definition is "cancellation" or "rescinding".....that didn't happen...

[Hermit-The-Prog]

31. the contract is between the legislature and the executive

There are only a few legitimate reasons within the law to withhold the funds.

683: "Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons [ ... ]"

684: "Whenever the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of any department or agency of the United States, or any officer or employee of the United States proposes to defer any budget authority provided for a specific purpose or project [ ... ]"

Instead, our Con-Incompetent decided to use an illegal reason -- to get help from a foreign leader for his own campaign.

[AncientGeezer]

32. You're more fun than than the law allows...

Can you pick a Law....that Chairman Schiff didn't use(knows WAY more than you do)...and stick with it.

You aren't right yet....legally....you might stumble on something if you keep moving the GP's ...yeah, no....you haven't yet...won't.

Chairman Schiff is on solid legal ground....you...not so much.
How do I know....Chairman Schiff's cmt. hearings.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

33. you might want to review Laura Cooper's deposition

[AncientGeezer]

36. You may want to follow Chairman Schiff's lead.... not your made up path.

He and his legal team know way more than we do...no matter how many times you move the GP's

[Hermit-The-Prog]

37. I've cited Schiff, the House, the law, reports, a deposition

Show me one cite you've made.

[AncientGeezer]

38. What you cited is a letter....that had no bearing on Shiffs proceedings

His Hearings and the Cmt Lawyers questions are my citations.
Made up crap is still just that....crap.....

Let's see what Chairman Nadler does....I bet it's not your legally irrelevant citations....

[Hermit-The-Prog]

39. um, the letter was signed by Schiff and laws are not "legally irrelevant"

Perhaps you should read some of the citations given.

Let's review:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/683

Which was referenced by:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/role-omb-withholding-ukrainian-aid

The letter from Schiff, Engel, Cummings:

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-10-07.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20to%20Vought-%20OMB%20re%20Subpoena.pdf

Which references:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/684

Laura Cooper's deposition, which also references the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, in response to a question by the House Intelligence Committee, which is the same Act referenced in the letter linked above:

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-cooper-deposition-transcript.pdf

And further, regarding Cooper's testimony at the hearing:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/nov/20/donald-trump-news-today-live-impeachment-hearings-gordon-sondland-ukraine-republicans-latest-updates

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/impeachment-testimony-bombshell-systematically-eliminated-the-republican-defenses-of-trump/

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-collar-and-criminal-law/insight-trump-violation-puts-spotlight-on-impoundment-control-act

Now, the above should be sufficient to answer the OP's question. I hope it is also sufficient to allay your apparent concern that I'm just making shit up that's not already in use and consideration by the House.

Thank you for a good discussion. I'm back to football, now.

[AncientGeezer]

41. You gave it a shot...a crap ton of links

....with zero relevance......you linked the Guradian for shit sake...and others with nothing to do with what Chairman Schiff presented.
I watched every minute of his hearings..
You tried...E for effort

[FBaggins]

11. Not quite

That would apply if he didn’t disburse the funds by the end of the budget cycle... and the whistleblower cased him to pay it out.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

13. no. see above.

[AncientGeezer]

17. There are 14 above your post....which?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

19. link...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12737180

[AncientGeezer]

20. Has no legal bearing....there was no recission

Again that's what the citation refers to....

[Hermit-The-Prog]

23. may you be happy in your beliefs

[AncientGeezer]

25. I'm happy in the facts...dumpster is a scumbag(fact)... but there was no recission, also a fact

[Bluesaph]

14. A more important question is:

How should a president handle it when Congress appropriates funds for a country and he doesn’t agree?

Trump didn’t follow procedure because he knew he was up to no good. End of story.

[sandensea]

18. The Constitution says no - but Emperor Cheetorious the Last says "fuckin' A!"

So in today's America, guess which one applies?