“THE IMPEACHMENT ILLUSION”
by Ren Jander, ©2019
(Nov. 16, 2019) — My previous report provides in depth legal analysis and documentary proof for everything that follows. That post was a necessary beast explaining all of the intricacies of law, and the diabolical media myth constructed as a deceptive piece of illusory magic casting a spell over our nation, from sea to shining sea. This post is an easy to digest summary thereof.
Below is the key point every American needs to understand going forward. Tell your friends and family about this. The impeachment illusion is totally exposed by this one key point:
All Ukraine funds were subject to legally mandated reviews concerning apportionment, and reapportionment was considered to benefit Ukraine, not take away from Ukraine.
The official fake timeline of this debacle erroneously claims that President Trump – under threat of cancellation – froze $391.5 million in funds granted by law for Ukraine aid until September 12, 2019 to force self-serving investigations.
It’s bunk. And here’s why: hundreds of millions of those funds were released well prior to September, 2019. Yup. Take it in, America. You’ve been duped again. Read my previous report slowly. Breathe deep.
Out of the $391.5 million made available to Ukraine by law, $250 million was earmarked for security assistance, and $141.5 million for Dept. of State programs for the benefit of Ukraine. But $125 million of security assistance was already released by July 2019 prior to Trump’s call with President Zelensky. Say what? Yeah. Read the report.
Furthermore, all of the State Department’s $141.5 million was released for Ukraine aid by August 9th, 2019. That’s a full month before the whistle leaker started this fiasco in cahoots with deep state cronies. Read the report.
Those funds – and all of the millions released prior thereto – were required by federal apportionment law to be reviewed at least four times a year. If funds are frozen pending legally mandated review, it is done so that the funds might be reapportioned to the beneficiary it is has been appropriated for, not from the beneficiary.
There is a huge difference in our federal code between appropriation and apportionment. This entire impeachment illusion is based upon the media confusing you as to the true legal purpose of these two words. In my previous report, I dig deep into the weeds of statutory law. So once again, reference that. But this is the simple version of truth, so let me break it down for you again now.
The $250 million was appropriated for Ukraine security assistance in H.R. 6157. Once it was appropriated for Ukraine, it had to be apportioned by the Executive Branch according to 31 U.S.C. 1512. For example, let’s say $10 million was apportioned for buying bullets. Now consider that all apportionments for appropriated funds must be reviewed four times a year according to 31 U.S.C. 1512(d), which states:
“(d) An apportionment or a reapportionment shall be reviewed at least 4 times a year by the official designated in section 1513 of this title to make apportionments.”
The word “shall” in the statute means the reviews must take place. Now let’s discuss the hypothetical $10 million for bullets. This apportionment is subject to review. Suppose the review indicates that in fiscal year 2018 we also gave Ukraine $10 million for bullets. Assume those bullets have not been used because Ukraine does not have enough rifles. As such, a surplus of bullets would exist. Therefore, it is determined that the $10 million for bullets in 2019 would be better spent for Ukraine on rifles to fire the 2018 bullets. And the $10 million is then reapportioned.
That is how you conduct a legally mandated review, followed by a legally mandated reapportionment. Freezing the $10 million for this type of review is done to benefit the recipient, in this case Ukraine. The freeze was not done to punish them. Are you starting to see the illusion come into focus now?
Note that the $10 million was never in danger of being taken from Ukraine. Reviews are done to make more efficient use of the money we spend.
All $391.5 million of the Ukraine funds were subject to these legally required reviews, which sometimes call for “holds” or “freezes”. There was nothing nefarious about it. This is an intelligent and legally defined statutory manner of conducting business by our nation. The reviews had to be done, and the holds associated with such reviews could only benefit Ukraine.
Ukraine was not aware of any funds being held back, because the money was flowing freely from the $391.5 million all year long. The first tranche of $125 million was released by July 2019. And that money was being put to good use. For example, the Wall Street Journal published this headline on March 11, 2019: U.S. Bulks Up Ukraine’s Navy to Thwart Russia. The report by James Marson begins as follows:
“The U.S. is channeling support to Ukraine’s navy to help counter Russian efforts to choke its neighbor’s economy and destabilize its pro-Western government by blocking access to ports.
U.S. training and equipment have helped strengthen Ukraine’s army in its five-year conflict with Russia, but the fresh U.S. focus reflects concern over the Kremlin’s new maritime efforts to halt Ukraine’s westward integration and keep Russia’s sphere of influence.”
Say what? Read that bit again about “fresh U.S focus” on “channeling support to Ukraine’s navy”. Funds used to provide this fresh military support of Ukraine back in March of this year were released from the first $125 million tranche. It’s confirmed right there by the Wall Street Journal. And you can read more about that prior Ukraine aid in my previous report.
The deep state is trying to impeach the President for being President. They think you are stupid, and that you deserve to be tricked for having the deplorable gall to elect Donald Trump to drain the swamp.
And everyone knows it.
Written and Researched by Ren Jander, J.D.
Looking for all of your news in one place? Try Whatfinger, your one-stop aggregator of news, opinion and everything else.
Is there any corroboration to this information? I have been trying to find it, and I cannot. Please provide links and any other documentation to support this article.
There are many links within the article which lead to supporting documents.
Why are we not seeing this info on national TV?
Steve in Missouri, ANY investigation,inquiry,trial,rule,legislation,process MUST be in keeping with the principles outlined in the Bill of Rights. Anything that is not founded on Constitutional principles are void. See Marbury v Madison (1803). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “A[ny] law that is repugnant to the constitution is void”. http://www.thepostemail.com/2019/11/02/citizen-directs-petition-for-redress-of-grievances-to-u-s-supreme-court. See also Miranda v Arizona “No law,rule or regulation can serve to abrogate a right guaranteed by the Constitution”. The President is an American citizen. He has all the rights any other American has. Those rights that are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights can NOT be abrogated by Congress,by the courts or by anyone else in Government.
wow, love this article,I agree with gnanny,why isn’t this put out there, by Rush,Sean,Mark or others that love our President. Iam so sick of all the crap and lies given to us,this would be such a eye opener for the public to read. Thanks so much MAGA
Yep, my lovely wife grew-up in the former CCCP – Ukraine. She voted for President Trump, although at the time is was simply a vote against the Rape Victim Attacker as she did not like Trump, at the time….
His unyielding support for Ukraine, in contrast to Obama telling Ukraine in 2014 to “pound sand” over Clinton’s written agreement to “defend Ukraine from a Russian invasion” = says it all.
Then, there are the fact that Obama and Hillary actually colluded with real live Russians – $143,000,000.00 times, whereas Trump sent 121 Javelin high teach anti-tank missile systems and US Special Forces to teach Ukraine’s army how to use the Javelin systems to force Russians out of Ukraine.
Yeah, Putin HATES Trump.
Thanks for publishing the information. It does clarify the situation and actually absolves the President of any wrong doing, however that won’t stop the New York Times and other Democrat backing media from writing stories that the President was engaged in criminal behavior and it won’t stop the Democrats, who control the House, from carrying out their impeachment inquiry and preventing any information at all that absolves the President from coming out as innocent.
This is not even a show trial, in that if there was a trial, the President would have representation.
There is nothing in the constitution that says the House has to carry out a fair investigation, so they’re not going to do it, and in fact they are going to make it the most unfair political accusation possible.
If the Democrats were also in control of the Senate, they would do the very same thing there.
Impeachment is an entirely political, not legal process, so this is all going to be carried out in an entirely partisan and political manner.
Probably witch hunt is the best term for it, since it has nothing to do with right or wrong but just the desire of the Democrats and their supporters to get rid of Trump and destroy any opposition to their agenda in Washington DC and throughout the country.
This is pretty amazing information.
Why isn’t this being picked up the likes of say…Mark Levin, or Sean Hannity or even John Solomon. This is important. Thank you very much for publishing this very important information.