by Ren Jander, ©2019

(Dec. 15, 2019) — Last week, I published back to back reports accusing Defense Secretary Laura Cooper of perjury and felony false statements to Congress during impeachment testimony.

In a follow up report on Thursday (Dec. 12th), I detailed how government statutes and practices were followed so that $250 million in Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) funds, and $115 million in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds for Ukraine were, in fact, obligated by mid-June 2019.  POTUS never touched this money with a hold or freeze.  I debunked Adam Schiff’s lies, and I accused Cooper of intentionally concealing – from Congress and the nation – that Trump did not hold any of this money back from Ukraine.

Apparently, my reporting sounded an alarm within coup factions of the government, as General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) responded by forwarding an intentionally fraudulent letter to the General Counsel of the Government Accounting Office (GAO), which appears to be a veiled attempt at protecting Laura Cooper from criminal scrutiny.

The December 12th letter from OMB legal counsel, Mark Paoletta, contains blatant lies directly contradicting my reporting on Cooper’s felonies.  I will debunk the OMB letter below, but please note that Paoletta’s letter is also a felony false statement in violation of 18 USC 1001, because it willfully presents false information in an official response to a GAO legal inquiry, specifically alleging the $115 million FMF funds required a Congressional Notification (CN) fifteen days prior to apportionment.

While my previous reporting follows both USAI funds (administered by DoD), and FMF funds (administered by DoS), this report will focus only upon OMB’s recent fraudulent discussion of FMF.  All of the $250 million in USAI funds were released and obligated no later than mid-June, but since that money did require statutory congressional notifications (on Feb. 28th, and May 23rd), I do not want to confuse the separate statutory requirements concerning USAI and FMF.  The $115 million in FMF cash for Ukraine did not require a CN for it to be apportioned or obligated.  OMB counsel, Mark Paoletta, lied in saying it did.


Before 2019 FMF funds were appropriated by Congress for Ukraine, the Department of State was required to justify its request for Ukraine’s allotment prior to enactment legislation.  Congress considered the DoS request then drafted legislation based upon their own considerations as well, and eventually the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 was passed.  $115 million to Ukraine for FMF is specifically provided in an allocation table of the Conference Report attached to the legislation.  As such, this amount does not require any separate CN prior to apportionment and subsequent obligation.  Paoletta’s letter – in a desperately bold falsehood – states that a CN was required prior to apportionment.

My previous report on FMF concerning Cooper’s misleading testimony is a must read now.  I proved that the $115 million appropriated for Ukraine in 2019 was “obligated upon apportionment” according to the DoS appropriations act.  Paoletta’s letter was forced to confront this legal truth.  But instead of clearing President Trump – by reinforcing our proof that all Ukraine FMF funds were obligated when transferred to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) account by March 2019 – Paoletta lied to the GAO’s General Counsel by inventing, out of thin air, a non-existent statutory requirement that DoS issue a CN fifteen-days before apportioning the FMF funds.  Here’s the lie (in bold) as it appears in the December 12 OMB letter:

“Additionally, in FY 2019, $5.9 billion was provided to State in a lump sum appropriation for the Foreign Military Financing Program (FMF) account (TAPS 1 1-1082/2019).  Within this total, $115 million was earmarked for Ukraine in the conference report for the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. FMF funds are obligated upon apportionment, consistent with the proviso under the FMF heading in the annual appropriations acts providing that ‘funds made available under this heading shall be obligated upon apportionment in accordance with paragraph (5)(C) of section 1501(a) of title 31, United States Code.’ However, the funding cannot be obligated and, therefore, cannot be apportioned until after the statutory Congressional Notification (CN) period of 15 days is complete. The CN for this $115 million was submitted to Congress on September 11, 2019, and the funds were apportioned and obligated on September 30, 2019.” (Emphasis added.)

This is one of the boldest lies I have ever seen.  It’s quite stunning actually.  That OMB thinks it can get away with it is frightening.  The reason FMF money is “obligated upon apportionment” flows from its nature as a grant.  According to 1501(a)(5)(C), grants become obligations upon documentation the grant has been made.  Congress grants the FMF funds in the appropriation.

31 US Code 1513(b)(1)(B) requires Executive Branch appropriations to be apportioned no later than thirty days after the date of enactment of the law by which the appropriation is made available.  The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 was signed by President Trump on February 15, 2019.  No later than thirty days after, the $115 million in FMF funds were apportioned, and said funds were then legally obligated immediately by operation of law.

Paoletta claims this process is interrupted by a statutory requirement that Congress be notified before FMF apportionment can happen.  But he does not cite any statute.  This is because no such statute exists.  OMB is lying to your face, and everyone familiar with this money knows that.

The Ukraine FMF funds went directly into the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) trust fund account for Ukraine prior to the need for any specific commitment.  If a statute requires a CN, it also requires a description of the use to which the funds will be made.  FMF funds do not require notice of any specified commitment before being transferred to the DSCA, the entity that controls the FMS trust fund account.  This is made clear in Chapter 9 of the Security Assistance Management Manual (SAMM), which makes no mention of a CN requirement:

“C9. Apportionment. Upon receipt of the DoS program approval and apportionment request document, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issues an apportionment document to DSCA. For FMF direct loans, the apportionment document provides DSCA with an apportionment of appropriated funds equal to the principal amount of the loan. FMF grant funds are obligated upon apportionment.

FMF funds, because they are immediately obligated upon apportionment, do not require any specific commitment to any specific program prior to apportionment/obligation.  Chapter 2 of the SAMM states:

“C2. Uncommitted Funds. Funding provided under FMF grant-aid is obligated upon apportionment and the funds remain available in the country’s FMF Trust account indefinitely. However, annual budget submissions must explain the accumulation of uncommitted funds in the trust account. Uncommitted funds can weaken SCO justification for future FMF. SCOs should monitor and manage SA programs to insure against the accumulation of uncommitted funds.”

If the FMF funds required a CN detailing their commitment, then the FMF funds could never be “uncommitted”.  The notion that a general CN requirement prevents apportionment until the funds are committed, and cleared, after a fifteen-day notification to Congress, is a terrible lie.  You will find no such statute in our laws.  If any such statute or regulation did exist, OMB counsel would have cited to it in the December 12th letter.  They failed to do so.

The stakes upon which this lie was made must be of such staggering consequence to the people at OMB, DoS, and DoD that they chose to accept the risk of exposure.  Their very freedom must depend upon selling this lie.  It appears the coup is engaged in a seditious conspiracy to overthrow a duly elected President.  And the stakes for that criminal offense are much greater than perjury/false statements.


Please note that SAMM also clarifies that FMF funds do not expire after one year.  Schiff’s coup inquisitors keep insisting that all of the Ukraine security funds were set to expire on September 30th.  Not true.  As I explained in great detail previously, FMF become multi-year grants that do not expire, so there was no great urgency to spend these funds before the end of FY19.  Chapter 9 of  the SAMM covers this:

“C9. Expenditure of FMF Funds. Transfers of FMF funds to the FMS Trust Fund account are expenditure transfers. Once transferred, FMF funds are expended and remain available indefinitely within the FMS Trust Fund for disbursements consistent with the purposes for which they were appropriated, obligated, and expended.”

Congress appropriates FMF money for a very specific purpose prior to enactment.  By its very nature, the grant is used for foreign military financing.  That is the purpose for granting FMF.  Ukraine is required to be part of this process.  They must send a Letter of Request (LOR) to DSCA asking to use the FMF cash for certain items.  This money is used for Ukraine on an as needed basis.  Needs change.  So rather than forcing Ukraine to spend it fast, perhaps wastefully, FMF goes directly into the FMS trust fund held by DSCA (as an “expenditure transfer”), and it remains on the books as an obligation owed by the government until needed.  Then it is immediately available when necessary, not subject to Congressional delay for approval.

You cannot hold that which you do not have.  FMF money is released upon apportionment, prior to any certain commitment.  Once it is transferred to DSCA, it remains in trust for Ukraine.  End of story.  Nobody touched that money after March, in that Trump never held even one penny of this money from Ukraine.  He could not get at that DSCA administered FMS trust fund unless he literally hacked into it.  This did not happen.  It could not happen.  Anyone claiming it did happen is lying to you.


In the December 12th letter, Paoletta crafts a strangely worded sentence that appears to indicate the 2018 FMF Ukraine money was also held until late September last year pending Congressional approval:

“The timing of the obligation of conference report language earmarked Ukraine FY 2019 funding was similar to the timing of the earmarked FY 2018 Ukraine funding, which was obligated on September 28, 2018.”

This bureaucratic double-speak is easily discredited, when you take note that in FY18 the FMF for Ukraine was used to purchase $47 million worth of Javelin missiles (See Deposition of Laura Cooper, pgs. 96-97).  Since the multi-million dollar cost of this purchase triggered a CN requirement under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), a separate CN was necessary in March 2018.  Congress did not object, and Ukraine got their missiles in April of 2018.  Obviously, the $47 million FMF expense was obligated well before the case was closed in April, not six months later in September.  OMB is lying.

By way of comparison, the Sept. 11, 2019 CN concerning the increase in FMF from $115 million to $141.5 million, makes no mention of the AECA.  In my previous report, I explained in great detail that the September 11th CN states that it is being sent to Congress pursuant to 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and Section 7015 of the State Department appropriations act of 2019.  Section 634A requires Congressional notification when the Executive Branch seeks to reprogram funds from one account to another.

In this case, $26.5 million was being taken from a 2018 carry-over appropriation regarding a separate account not belonging to Ukraine, and therefore Congress must be notified of the reprogramming.  And since $26.5 million is more than ten percent of the $115 million total FMF appropriated to Ukraine in the Conference Report accompanying the 2019 DoS appropriations act, that increase also required a CN pursuant to Sec. 7015 of that act.  This is why both statutes are included in the September 11th CN.  Not because a CN was required to obligate the original $115 million appropriated to Ukraine, but only to notify Congress that DoS was reprogramming a $26.5 million increase in FMF to support Ukraine in 2019.

So basically, the DoS, DoD, and most blatantly, the OMB, are using technical double-speak to frame President Trump for impeachment and removal by the Senate for holding back security assistance from Ukraine, when, truth be told, Trump actually increased Ukraine FMF funding from $115 million to $141.5 million.  This is how smart the bastards think they are.  And this is how dumb they think you are.  Arrogant deep state actors despise you.

On a side note, it’s also worth pointing out that Paoletta’s December 12th letter contributes to the myth that USAI left-overs were held for 55 straight days. There was at least an eight-day pause in the apportionment letters issued to reevaluate the best use for the remaining unobligated funds.

As such, there was no official hold in effect for that time period.  Paoletta’s letter to the GAO General Counsel makes it seem as if the apportionment letters that constrained obligation of Ukraine USAI funds (pending a quick review to determine how best to spend for Ukraine) were in effect uninterrupted until September 11th.  But OMB staffer Mark Sandy, who wrote the first apportionment letter on July 25th, testified that there was an eight-day gap, between August 12th and August 20th, when there was no documented hold in place.  (Sandy Dep. Pgs. 124-126).

Had all of the breathlessly offended deep state witnesses trying to impeach and remove the President been truly worried about Ukraine in this crucial time period, they could have done their job and obligated whatever small amount of USAI was still unobligated for those eight days.  Instead, they sat on their hands hoping the coup would remove the President.  They didn’t give a damn about Ukraine for those eight days.  In fact, they hoped then, as Paoletta and OMB hope now, that you won’t notice the gap.

I published the accurate historical research that cleared the good name of Trump’s father from a vicious racial smear placed by Philip Bump of the Washington Post, Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times, and Vice News.  Facts destroy frames.  The White House is infested.  Fumigate now.  Beware.  The Senate cannot be relied upon.

Written and Researched by Ren Jander.

Looking for all of your news in one place?  Try Whatfinger, your one-stop aggregator of news, opinion and everything else.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Why did the Defense Department say no one heard that call at the beginning of October and have several testify they did at the end of October?

  2. I don’t trust anyone around the President- I sent this to my senator and asked him to please make sure the president and his legal team were apprised. I may also send it to Nunes and I trust him to get it to the president

  3. “the benefit of doubt goes to the accused under our legal premise of “Innocent until proven guilty.”

    As far as I know Ren Jander has not been accused of anything, certainly not by me. He may be right that there never was a freeze of the funds for Ukraine but the testimony and documentation available at this time doesn’t bear that out.

  4. “Since the money never stopped flowing, as David Hale testified,”

    His testimony was that the aid was frozen by OMB based on a Presidential directive.

    Q: But you learned on, I think you said June 21st, about the freeze?
    A: Yes. Again, in researching the records for this meeting today, it was evident that I knew from my staff — I think it was from my staff — that OMB had stopped the aid, or at least we were getting inklings of that, that that was happening, and that the FMF-11 was also held.

    Q: And with regard to the aid for Ukraine, was it your understanding that that freeze on or about June 21st related to both FMF and USAI?
    A: I don’t know if that distinction was apparent to me at that time. May not have been until I was getting prepared for the D.C. meeting when I would focus on that particular issue.


    A: …And I was hoping — very hopeful that the Secretary of State would be persuasive
    and convince the President that this was the right thing to do, to release the money.
    Q: And ultimately it was?
    A: It was.

  5. If, IF, it is “Hard to tell who is right” the benefit of doubt goes to the accused under our legal premise of “Innocent until proven guilty.”

  6. Give it up, Des. You are outclassed and outworked. Jander covered all of this in previous reports. Stop trolling. Give the man credit. He has revealed important info.

  7. “See the EXACT expenditures here in Rood’s letter:”

    The Rood letter says the numbers in the tables are estimates

    “Figures provided in this notification reflect estimated quantities and values. These figures may change based on the final price and availability of individual items, but the overall cost will not exceed $125 million, and the quantity of items will remain consistent with the stated nature and scope of the program.”

    “By Executive Order, DoD controls that money once transferred , not OMB. This is why the 911 CN was from DoS not OMB”

    This article says OMB directs the agencies how to spend the money.

    “After money is appropriated by Congress, OMB provides agencies with direction on how quickly to spend it, in a process called apportionment.”

    “The purpose is to avoid spending too quickly and running out of money, or not spending all the funds that Congress has intended. In the past, apportionments were almost always written and signed by the agency’s career officials, who remain in the job from one administration to the next.”


    Hard to tell who is right.

  8. Additional comment from Ren Jander:

    Zelensky is quoting fake news. Since the money never stopped flowing, as David Hale testified, Zelensky would not know the intricacies of disbursement laws in the USA. The FMF money NEVER goes into the actual hands of Ukraine. It never goes into their own accounts. They don’t actually get to spend it. It stays in DoD accounts administered by DSCA in trust for Ukraine. We make the decisions when and how that money is spent. Zelensky never touches it. So he would not understand at all anything other than media reports. Ukraine was receiving aid the whole time.

    As for the USAI,
    SECURITYASSISTANCE.ORG detailed exactly how the first $125 million was spent back in July, listing grenade launchers, sniper rifles, armor piercing bullets. It’s documented here

    And we’ve been all over this in various reports here and at American Thinker. You need to catch up with us.


    Trump never held one dollar back from Ukraine. He increased the fmf appropriation from $115 million to $141.5 million. Also, the USAI money was all obligated by mid-June. John C. Rood’s May 23rd Congressional Notification includes 12 pages of tables listing EXACTLY how the second $125 million tranche would be spent. Congress cleared that by mid-June and it went to DSCA as is standard operating procedure listed in the Operation Handbook.

    See the EXACT expenditures here in Rood’s letter:


  9. “He did not hold a penny of it from Ukraine.”

    Still confused. Ukraine’s President Zelenskiy said the money was withheld until September.

    From Radio Free Europe’s website:

    “Zelenskiy said he was careful not to comment publicly on the military aid issue while it was under review, suggesting that doing so could interfere with the White House’s decision.”

    “But now we can say we have very good relations with the U.S., because now we will get not only $250 million but [an additional] $140 million,” he said, referring to reports that the U.S. State Department would also be moving forward with a separate $140 million aid package for Ukraine apart from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.

    “When you are waiting for $250 million but then have the possibility to get $390 million, I like this sort of relationship,” Zelenskiy added.”


    Why would President Zelenskiy say the money was withheld?

    Is it possible the terminology is confusing the issue?

  10. “Hence, they had to notify Congress but only as to the increase”

    But the notification is for the entire $141,500,000. The extra $26,500,000 appears to be left over from FY 2018 FMF-OCO

    This statement in the notification is interesting:

    “this notification is to advise of our intent to obligate up to $115,000,000 in FY 2019 FMF funding for Ukraine; and up to $26,500,000 in FY 2018 FMF-OCO for CRIF and Europe and Eurasia Regional.”

    So was the $115,000,000 not obligated yet?

    And then there is this September 12th article:

    WASHINGTON ― The White House has relinquished its hold on $250 million in military aid to Ukraine after weeks of bipartisan pressure from lawmakers who said the funding was needed to deter Russia.

    Republicans and Democratic members of the Senate Appropriations Committee said Thursday the administration had relented late Wednesday. The news emerged in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on fiscal 2020 defense spending.


    It was the White House Office of Management and Budget that lifted the hold, which applied to both the $250 million in the Pentagon’s Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative and $141.5 million in foreign military financing being prepared separately by the State Department, according to congressional sources.


    Hard to tell who is right.

    1. Reply from Ren Jander:

      No part of the $115 million was in excess of the amount justified in Conference Report. Therefore, no Congressional Notification was necessary. $115 mil was authorized for “obligation and expenditure” by Sec. 7022. $115 million was apportioned into the DSCA FMF Trust Fund for Ukraine back in March.

      Section 7015(c) is necessary only to notify Congress of reprogramming the $26.5 million increase “in excess” of the $115 milliion.

      See my reports at this site on Laura Cooper’s felony false statements, as to 31 US CODE 1513, which mandates that the President “shall” apportion all appropriations “no later than” thirty days after “enactment”. No exceptions. The FMF was obligated when apportioned by operation of law back in March, since Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 on Feb. 15, 2019.

      The 911 CN was specifically worded to obfuscate the fact that Trump gave Ukraine more than Congress appropriated, not less. He did not hold a penny of it from Ukraine. The coup needed to fabricate a delay in Congressional notification. By Executive Order, DoD controls that money once transferred , not OMB. This is why the 911 CN was from DoS not OMB. Duh. Accuracy counts.”

  11. “not justified or in excess of the amount justified”

    “[N]ot justified” is one set of circumstances


    “[I]n excess of” is a different set of circumstances.

    1. Response from Ren Jander:

      The amount “justified” is in conference report allocation table listed as $115 million. When you go above the justified amount by more than ten percent you must notify Congress, but that is not necessary for the justified amount, in this case, $115 million was justified. 26.5 million is more than a ten percent increase. Hence, they had to notify Congress but only as to the increase.

      Trump never held the $115 million, he actually increased it for Ukraine up to $141.5 million. They are framing him.

  12. Jigsaw is wrong. 7015(c) only requires notice when increasing the amount appropriated “in excess of the amount justified to the Committees on Appropriations”. Excess being the controlling word. Jander addressed this. Read the actual article, Jigsaw. If they didn’t go over the statutory amount, $115 million up to $141.5 mil, notice would not have been required under 7015(c). It was the 26.5 mil increase that triggered 7015(c). Jander covered that in detail. But you already know that.

  13. SECTION 7015(c) of the 2019 Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act:

    Notification requirement

    None of the funds made available by this Act under the headings …, Foreign Military Financing Program, …shall be available for obligation for activities, programs, projects, type of materiel assistance, countries, or other operations not justified or in excess of the amount justified to the Committees on Appropriations for obligation under any of these specific headings unless the Committees on Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance of such obligation: …”

  14. I sadly believe D3fiant is correct. The Swamp is endless and constantly corrupting and the swamp creatures want nothing different. Where are any men and women of courage that have or will stand up and demand investigation and punishment for Clinton, COmey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, Page, Ohr, Simpson, Schiff, Nadler, ad infinitum?

    POTUS Trump was a last gasp chance for this republic to survive but he cannot do it alone. The weak, scared, corrupt Republican’s are actually the worse problem; we know who and what the Dems are about.

    I was a federal contractor for years. I know that Ren is on target with this article. Just cynical it will make a difference.

  15. Ren, once again a brilliant article on this attempt to frame our President. After reading this article I emailed both the President and AG Barr using, Contact the White House and Contact the AG forms available online. I would encourage anyone reading this comment to do the same. I listened to Cooper testify and she just didn’t seem credible but seem through your reporting she a liar and a Deep Stater. This has to end!

  16. I sincerely wished all of this mattered but we know that Democrats are free to commit fraud and perjury at will. Proving their guilt is rarely at issue…indeed their defacto immunity often encourages them to commit these crimes overtly and without any effort the justify them. The challenge is finding anyone with the rare combination of will and authority to punish them. This instance will be no different.

    1. Reply from Joseph DeMaio:

      As to D3F1ANT’s “will and authority to punish” statement, in addition to sending the post to POTUS (and perhaps Cippolone), consideration should be given to sending it to John Durham, Bill Barr and Lindsey Graham. If there is, in fact, an undiscovered CFR provision or uncodified session law lurking somewhere regarding the presence (or lack) of a purported 15-day Congressional Notification requirement, they should unearth it. On the other hand, if, as Jander states, there is in fact no such provision in existence, Durham, Barr and Graham should follow up in their own jurisdictional spheres and take action… robust and decisive action.