Now Enter The Trump "Impoundment Control Act" Criminal Violations

[ThunderKiss1965]

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - Wikipedia Trump wanted to hide the money from being exposed by using it for a crime he committed. It really doesn't get much easier than that to understand. And the documents were released proving this was in fact a crime; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

There is nothing the Senate can do to justify this treasonous, criminal act by Trump.


Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request, and has ignored most Presidential requests.[4] In response, some[who?] have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment.[5]

In late November 2019, the obscure Impoundment Control Act made news during the Trump impeachment investigation, as two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the hold of approved Ukraine military funds. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to a political appointee.[6][7][8][9]

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

BWK...are you a shifty, Christ killer bent on destroying our president?

No, Trump did that himself. I just cover the facts and don't live a life of fantasy like Trump and his Toads.

IDK...you come off as awful Jewey in your approach.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - Wikipedia Trump wanted to hide the money from being exposed by using it for a crime he committed. It really doesn't get much easier than that to understand. And the documents were released proving this was in fact a crime; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

There is nothing the Senate can do to justify this treasonous, criminal act by Trump.


Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request, and has ignored most Presidential requests.[4] In response, some[who?] have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment.[5]

In late November 2019, the obscure Impoundment Control Act made news during the Trump impeachment investigation, as two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the hold of approved Ukraine military funds. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to a political appointee.[6][7][8][9]

Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?

It is. It's an abuse of power.

You are a typical demoncrap, making shit up. It wasn't and you know it. Otherwise you're a liar.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - Wikipedia Trump wanted to hide the money from being exposed by using it for a crime he committed. It really doesn't get much easier than that to understand. And the documents were released proving this was in fact a crime; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

There is nothing the Senate can do to justify this treasonous, criminal act by Trump.

Which is why it was in the House's Articles.

Oh..... wait........

It was. It was called an "abuse of power."

Did you come up with that one all by yourself? That's very creative. It makes no sense at all, but it is very creative.

No, just a law that Republican ignoramuses don't know or care about, because they support criminals and hate this country.

You just described dimwits.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - Wikipedia Trump wanted to hide the money from being exposed by using it for a crime he committed. It really doesn't get much easier than that to understand. And the documents were released proving this was in fact a crime; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

There is nothing the Senate can do to justify this treasonous, criminal act by Trump.


Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request, and has ignored most Presidential requests.[4] In response, some[who?] have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment.[5]

In late November 2019, the obscure Impoundment Control Act made news during the Trump impeachment investigation, as two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the hold of approved Ukraine military funds. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to a political appointee.[6][7][8][9]

LOL....I can smell the desperation through the internet.

 

[Care4all]

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - Wikipedia Trump wanted to hide the money from being exposed by using it for a crime he committed. It really doesn't get much easier than that to understand. And the documents were released proving this was in fact a crime; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

There is nothing the Senate can do to justify this treasonous, criminal act by Trump.


Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request, and has ignored most Presidential requests.[4] In response, some[who?] have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment.[5]

In late November 2019, the obscure Impoundment Control Act made news during the Trump impeachment investigation, as two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the hold of approved Ukraine military funds. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to a political appointee.[6][7][8][9]

Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?

From what I understand, statutes of laws broken, are not listed because the House is not criminal prosecutors or grand juries, and can not charge any president with a criminal offense that they could go to jail over... unlike the Clinton and Nixon impeachment investigations, they had prosecutors and grand juries who could legally press criminal charges after removal, all sitting and waiting to do such...

in this case, if the president were to be removed from office, by the Senate, it would then be up to some unknown prosecutors on whether to bring criminal charges, and prosecute after the president's removal.

LOL

The house must identify the crime, thus they must prove the elements of a specific crime. The Senate is going to throw out your baseless articles for cause and its going to be epic..

Yep. Trump being mean and doesn’t obey Democrats is a nonstarter. That’s why Pelosi won’t hand it over to impeach Trump.

she is suppose to turn it over to an IMPARTIAL Senate for trial....

well, Leader McConnell was stupefied by the good Lord, and showed his crooked hand for all to see and hear, on a FOX News show,

stating as the senate leader, he would NOT be impartial in the trial, and is working hand in hand with the defendant's lawyers, the president's lawyers, so that the president is guaranteed an acquittal under his leadership, all before the trial takes place....

That kind of stopped her in her constitutional (high heeled) tracks, from turning it over to the crook, leading the Senate....

 

[BWK]

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - Wikipedia Trump wanted to hide the money from being exposed by using it for a crime he committed. It really doesn't get much easier than that to understand. And the documents were released proving this was in fact a crime; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

There is nothing the Senate can do to justify this treasonous, criminal act by Trump.


Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request, and has ignored most Presidential requests.[4] In response, some[who?] have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment.[5]

In late November 2019, the obscure Impoundment Control Act made news during the Trump impeachment investigation, as two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the hold of approved Ukraine military funds. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to a political appointee.[6][7][8][9]

LOL....I can smell the desperation through the internet.

And I can see a loss of intelligent arguing words coming from you.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Articles Of Impeachment Updated To Read 'Orange Man Bad'

 

[Billy_Bob]

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - Wikipedia Trump wanted to hide the money from being exposed by using it for a crime he committed. It really doesn't get much easier than that to understand. And the documents were released proving this was in fact a crime; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

There is nothing the Senate can do to justify this treasonous, criminal act by Trump.


Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request, and has ignored most Presidential requests.[4] In response, some[who?] have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment.[5]

In late November 2019, the obscure Impoundment Control Act made news during the Trump impeachment investigation, as two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the hold of approved Ukraine military funds. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to a political appointee.[6][7][8][9]

Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?

From what I understand, statutes of laws broken, are not listed because the House is not criminal prosecutors or grand juries, and can not charge any president with a criminal offense that they could go to jail over... unlike the Clinton and Nixon impeachment investigations, they had prosecutors and grand juries who could legally press criminal charges after removal, all sitting and waiting to do such...

in this case, if the president were to be removed from office, by the Senate, it would then be up to some unknown prosecutors on whether to bring criminal charges, and prosecute after the president's removal.

If it’s not a criminal case how did Schiff obtain the phone records of private US Citizens?

None of congress's oversight involves criminal statutes and them prosecuting...? They still have subpoena power, to investigate.

I heard on the news that oversight committees can get the meta data phone records, and have done so previously as well...

are you saying that is not true?

You just said it wasn’t a criminal investigation, you can’t keep flipping.

And no, it is against the law to obtain and publicize phone records of private citizens.

Yep!

And Schiff is now under investigation for it....

 

[BWK]

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - Wikipedia Trump wanted to hide the money from being exposed by using it for a crime he committed. It really doesn't get much easier than that to understand. And the documents were released proving this was in fact a crime; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

There is nothing the Senate can do to justify this treasonous, criminal act by Trump.


Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request, and has ignored most Presidential requests.[4] In response, some[who?] have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment.[5]

In late November 2019, the obscure Impoundment Control Act made news during the Trump impeachment investigation, as two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the hold of approved Ukraine military funds. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to a political appointee.[6][7][8][9]

Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?

It is. It's an abuse of power.

You are a typical demoncrap, making shit up. It wasn't and you know it. Otherwise you're a liar.

If I were making it up, then where is the intelligent defense proving it was all made up? Aren't you smart enough to show us?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - Wikipedia Trump wanted to hide the money from being exposed by using it for a crime he committed. It really doesn't get much easier than that to understand. And the documents were released proving this was in fact a crime; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

There is nothing the Senate can do to justify this treasonous, criminal act by Trump.


Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request, and has ignored most Presidential requests.[4] In response, some[who?] have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment.[5]

In late November 2019, the obscure Impoundment Control Act made news during the Trump impeachment investigation, as two budget office staffers resigned over their concerns over apparent improprieties regarding the hold of approved Ukraine military funds. Among the concerns was the questionable transfer of decision-making authority to a political appointee.[6][7][8][9]

Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?

From what I understand, statutes of laws broken, are not listed because the House is not criminal prosecutors or grand juries, and can not charge any president with a criminal offense that they could go to jail over... unlike the Clinton and Nixon impeachment investigations, they had prosecutors and grand juries who could legally press criminal charges after removal, all sitting and waiting to do such...

in this case, if the president were to be removed from office, by the Senate, it would then be up to some unknown prosecutors on whether to bring criminal charges, and prosecute after the president's removal.

LOL

The house must identify the crime, thus they must prove the elements of a specific crime. The Senate is going to throw out your baseless articles for cause and its going to be epic..

Yep. Trump being mean and doesn’t obey Democrats is a nonstarter. That’s why Pelosi won’t hand it over to impeach Trump.

she is suppose to turn it over to an IMPARTIAL Senate for trial....

well, Leader McConnell was stupefied by the good Lord, and showed his crooked hand for all to see and hear, on a FOX News show,

stating as the senate leader, he would NOT be impartial in the trial, and is working hand in hand with the defendant's lawyers, the president's lawyers, so that the president is guaranteed an acquittal under his leadership, all before the trial takes place....

That kind of stopped her in her constitutional high heeled tracks, from turning it over to the crook, leading the Senate....

That’s a lie. Senate gets it period or he’s not impeached.

And as far as impartiality, Pelosi said they’ve been trying to impeach Trump for 3 years.

This is about an event that occurred August 2019.

 

[Weatherman2020]

What House Democrats have done is say they can dictate to both the President and the Senate.
Nope.

 

[BWK]

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 - Wikipedia Trump wanted to hide the money from being exposed by using it for a crime he committed. It really doesn't get much easier than that to understand. And the documents were released proving this was in fact a crime; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

There is nothing the Senate can do to justify this treasonous, criminal act by Trump.

Which is why it was in the House's Articles.

Oh..... wait........

It was. It was called an "abuse of power."

Did you come up with that one all by yourself? That's very creative. It makes no sense at all, but it is very creative.

No, just a law that Republican ignoramuses don't know or care about, because they support criminals and hate this country.

You just described dimwits.

Well look hot shot, if that is true, then link the proof of that, instead of placing buggers on your keyboard and try typing something of value.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What House Democrats have done is say they can dictate to both the President and the Senate.
Nope.

Just a little self-aggrandizing going on in Pelosi's mind... Inst there....

They have lost their minds over there in the House and they must be brought under control. They think they are kings and queens that should control everything... Standard Fascist democrat thinking..

 

[Care4all]

lesson learned!

THUNDERBOLT and background music...setting

voice over saying;

Do NOT mess with Mother Pelosi!

 

[BWK]

Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?

From what I understand, statutes of laws broken, are not listed because the House is not criminal prosecutors or grand juries, and can not charge any president with a criminal offense that they could go to jail over... unlike the Clinton and Nixon impeachment investigations, they had prosecutors and grand juries who could legally press criminal charges after removal, all sitting and waiting to do such...

in this case, if the president were to be removed from office, by the Senate, it would then be up to some unknown prosecutors on whether to bring criminal charges, and prosecute after the president's removal.

LOL

The house must identify the crime, thus they must prove the elements of a specific crime. The Senate is going to throw out your baseless articles for cause and its going to be epic..

Yep. Trump being mean and doesn’t obey Democrats is a nonstarter. That’s why Pelosi won’t hand it over to impeach Trump.

she is suppose to turn it over to an IMPARTIAL Senate for trial....

well, Leader McConnell was stupefied by the good Lord, and showed his crooked hand for all to see and hear, on a FOX News show,

stating as the senate leader, he would NOT be impartial in the trial, and is working hand in hand with the defendant's lawyers, the president's lawyers, so that the president is guaranteed an acquittal under his leadership, all before the trial takes place....

That kind of stopped her in her constitutional high heeled tracks, from turning it over to the crook, leading the Senate....

That’s a lie. Senate gets it period or he’s not impeached.

And as far as impartiality, Pelosi said they’ve been trying to impeach Trump for 3 years.

This is about an event that occurred August 2019.

He should have been impeached on day one when he covered for Flynn, when an attack on the US occurred with Flynn setting foreign policy behind Obama's back, then lying about it, and Trump tried to get Comey to let him go.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Which is why it was in the House's Articles.

Oh..... wait........

It was. It was called an "abuse of power."

Did you come up with that one all by yourself? That's very creative. It makes no sense at all, but it is very creative.

No, just a law that Republican ignoramuses don't know or care about, because they support criminals and hate this country.

You just described dimwits.

Well look hot shot, if that is true, then link the proof of that, instead of placing buggers on your keyboard and try typing something of value.

Still waiting for the RETARD to post up the CRIME that the impeachment is based on....

 

[j-mac]

Quote please? Not that you have one.

I don't,Trump does. /www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmlZ85RHPI

Bwahhaaaaa! Brooke Baldwin from CNN? Are you kidding me? Good grief, smarten up young man...You really are gullible if you believe that crap.

Your non-existent arguing points are burying the shit out of you. You aren't defending Trump on anything. You idiots hurt more than help when you show up here with zero arguing points to the facts that have been presented. The desperation is just over the top for these Trump stooges.

The only fact here is that you are a complete dumbass....It must be hard losing so much.

LOl! Damn son, did you get that line from your third grade class?

Nope just an observation.

 

[Jitss617]

From what I understand, statutes of laws broken, are not listed because the House is not criminal prosecutors or grand juries, and can not charge any president with a criminal offense that they could go to jail over... unlike the Clinton and Nixon impeachment investigations, they had prosecutors and grand juries who could legally press criminal charges after removal, all sitting and waiting to do such...

in this case, if the president were to be removed from office, by the Senate, it would then be up to some unknown prosecutors on whether to bring criminal charges, and prosecute after the president's removal.

LOL

The house must identify the crime, thus they must prove the elements of a specific crime. The Senate is going to throw out your baseless articles for cause and its going to be epic..

Yep. Trump being mean and doesn’t obey Democrats is a nonstarter. That’s why Pelosi won’t hand it over to impeach Trump.

she is suppose to turn it over to an IMPARTIAL Senate for trial....

well, Leader McConnell was stupefied by the good Lord, and showed his crooked hand for all to see and hear, on a FOX News show,

stating as the senate leader, he would NOT be impartial in the trial, and is working hand in hand with the defendant's lawyers, the president's lawyers, so that the president is guaranteed an acquittal under his leadership, all before the trial takes place....

That kind of stopped her in her constitutional high heeled tracks, from turning it over to the crook, leading the Senate....

That’s a lie. Senate gets it period or he’s not impeached.

And as far as impartiality, Pelosi said they’ve been trying to impeach Trump for 3 years.

This is about an event that occurred August 2019.

He should have been impeached on day one when he covered for Flynn, when an attack on the US occurred with Flynn setting foreign policy behind Obama's back, then lying about it, and Trump tried to get Comey to let him go.

By saying Flynn is a good man? Lol are you on drugs?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't,Trump does. /www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmlZ85RHPI

Bwahhaaaaa! Brooke Baldwin from CNN? Are you kidding me? Good grief, smarten up young man...You really are gullible if you believe that crap.

Your non-existent arguing points are burying the shit out of you. You aren't defending Trump on anything. You idiots hurt more than help when you show up here with zero arguing points to the facts that have been presented. The desperation is just over the top for these Trump stooges.

The only fact here is that you are a complete dumbass....It must be hard losing so much.

LOl! Damn son, did you get that line from your third grade class?

Nope just an observation.

And and excellent one at that.....