The action of a hold is still a hold. Period.
The President held the aide for months and months.
How many months? "Months and months" says at least four month, but I'm looking for the date it was first "held", and whether or not there needed to be funds expended by that time. Where is the documentation that shows the funds must have been obligated by "X" date?
When he released it, there was not enough time to release all the funds and Congress was forced to re-appropriate it in FY2020.
What color was the money? There are different colors of money that may be spent over different numbers of years.
Had the aide been released when the OMB initially notified Congress, there would be no need to re-appropriate the money that didn't make it out due to Trump's hold.
Was it required at that date? What document, what law, shows that it must have been obligated by that date? Was that date already a "hold" on the money, because it should have been sooner?
Or, did the law say 30 September, and anything before 30 September was within the timeframe of the law?
Here's the timeline.
- Sept. 28, 2018, Congress passes and the president signs Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-245, div. A, title IX, § 9013, 132 Stat. 2981, 3044–45. This authorizes money to be spent for Ukraine.
- Sept 11, the aid is released.
I know you want to argue that because it made it out on time, that all is good. But a hold is a hold is a hold. Regardless if it happens, then doesn't, within the time frame allotted.
I modified your timeline to extract the "nifty" information, and put in the "applicable" information. While the rest really is nifty, it has nothing to do with what the law requires.
This is the GAO's legal opinion. This is the law.
Those two things are really just not synonymous. I'm sure you must understand that.
Until you can show me where in the law it states the money was due prior to 30 September, you really have a great debate point for arguing who you like to execute laws, but not really whether or not the law is being executed. You could even attempt to argue whether or not the law was "faithfully" executed, but you really have no argument as to whether the law was executed when the law says, "you can use this much money starting before 9/30", and money was started to be used before 9/30.
The money was withheld to pursue Trump's policy objectives. This is not a permissible reason to delay such spending under the relevant law.
Yet, in fact, the money was not withheld. You can argue honestly that it was delayed from when it could have been obligated, but not that it was withheld since the facts show the money was not withheld beyond the date of required obligation.
A foreign policy decision is what Trump and his supporters have argued is the sole reason he held the aide.
Yet, he never withheld the money. He may have delayed it, but it was not withheld from the legally-required time of obligation.
