© mediadc.brightspotcdn
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff contemplates his future self.
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff contemplates his future self.
Buried in the House Intelligence Committee's report is a cherry-picked, blurred, and poorly cited description of this law, which twists it as somehow cutting against the president. As I have argued previously, however, the actual text of the act casts doubt on this entire impeachment inquiry. Democrats have long sought whatever excuse was available to impeach, but the law prescribes a much less drastic remedy for when a president withholds appropriated funds.
First, the committee's report falsely characterizes what the law says about the temporary withholding or deferring of funds. On page 75, the report states,
"Any amount of budget authority proposed to be deferred (i.e., temporarily withheld) or rescinded (i.e., permanently withheld) must be made available for obligation unless Congress, within 45 legislative days, completes action on a bill rescinding all or part of the amount proposed for rescission."But this is false. Although permanently "rescinded" funds must be made available in this manner and within that time frame, the language in section 684 contains no such requirement for funds that are temporarily withheld, or "deferred," as in the case of the aid to Ukraine.
Comment: Wham! It should be rather simple. There are laws and legalities. They are written and accessible. They apply to Congress. How could they not know this? (And if they did, what does that say?)