Now Enter The Trump "Impoundment Control Act" Criminal Violations

[basquebromance]

Trump's trampling on our constitution, its the end of our republic as we know it, as Benjamin Franklin.

the founding fathers were concerned about mob behavior. Trump is a mob boss they wrote about in the constitution, my friends

if these nitwit GOP Senators could vote in private, they would all vote for impeachment

 

[Billy_Bob]

Trump's trampling on our constitution, its the end of our republic as we know it, as Benjamin Franklin.

the founding fathers were concerned about mob behavior. Trump is a mob boss they wrote about in the constitution, my friends

if these nitwit GOP Senators could vote in private, they would all vote for impeachment

Poor Bro is projecting again... Wishing he could get the banana republic he wants...

 

[Weatherman2020]

Trump's trampling on our constitution, its the end of our republic as we know it, as Benjamin Franklin.

the founding fathers were concerned about mob behavior. Trump is a mob boss they wrote about in the constitution, my friends

if these nitwit GOP Senators could vote in private, they would all vote for impeachment

Poor Bro is projecting again... Wishing he could get the banana republic he wants...

As a famous community organizer once said - elections have consequences!

 

[Maxdeath]

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....

Damn you just keep repeating the same stupid stuff, I guess hoping everyone is as stupid as you and will believe it. You and I have been over this before. McConnell said he was working with the White House. As is expected to see what they want to do, as in supply a defense, supply witnesses, supply transcripts etc.
he said that in its current form going off what was presented in the house it will be shot down in the senate as second and third hand hearsay, I took the conversation that I overheard amounts to nothing more then a joke. They need real cause to find him guilty.
You and others hopes and wet dreams are not enough.

 

[j-mac]

Trump's trampling on our constitution, its the end of our republic as we know it, as Benjamin Franklin.

the founding fathers were concerned about mob behavior. Trump is a mob boss they wrote about in the constitution, my friends

if these nitwit GOP Senators could vote in private, they would all vote for impeachment

Not likely. The real "Mob" are the progressive Democrats.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Where does the constitution give a timeline of when it is turned over and after what time period of not being turned over is there, before making it null and void, as you state?

With Johnson's impeachment, it was held till the new Senate was seated....

it's kinda funny... the lawyer in the hearing for democrats is now the one saying the impeachment would be nullified if not turned over

and the lawyer the republicans used, Jonathan Turley... is taking the position that it would not be nullified if not turned over....

 

[j-mac]

More fantasy bullshit

Russia Part Two

That's just a chicken shit rant with no substance. Lol! Another Trump Toad who says nothing.

"Trump Toad" eh? And people say liberals are tolerant....ha, silly people.

Tolerance and your stupidity are not synonymous.

I've forgotten more than you'll ever know...

You're boring and you don't say shit. Get lost.

I'd say plenty if I had someone that was actually intrested in honest conversation, instead of talking point crap, put out by propagandists bent on nullifying 63 million votes.

 

[j-mac]

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.

Where does the constitution give a timeline of when it is turned over and after what time period of not being turned over is there, before making it null and void, as you state?

With Johnson's impeachment, it was held till the new Senate was seated....

it's kinda funny... the lawyer in the hearing for democrats is now the one saying the impeachment would be nullified if not turned over

and the lawyer the republicans used, Jonathan Turley... is taking the position that it would not be nullified if not turned over....

oh look, another of Schiff's stars writes:

"Democrat witness says Trump not impeached until articles sent to Senate"

Democrat witness says Trump not impeached until articles sent to Senate

 

[Care4all]

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....

Damn you just keep repeating the same stupid stuff, I guess hoping everyone is as stupid as you and will believe it. You and I have been over this before. McConnell said he was working with the White House. As is expected to see what they want to do, as in supply a defense, supply witnesses, supply transcripts etc.
he said that in its current form going off what was presented in the house it will be shot down in the senate as second and third hand hearsay, I took the conversation that I overheard amounts to nothing more then a joke. They need real cause to find him guilty.
You and others hopes and wet dreams are not enough.

that's not what McConnell said.... you can pretend all you want....

he said he was working lock step with them, on whatever they wanted him to do..... to get the president exonerated, an acquittal.

and told Schummer he would not work with him or the prosecution on what they need....

THAT is NOT an impartial juror.... no matter what you claim or your try at a rewrite of history....

 

[Care4all]

They need real cause to find him guilty.

they have a real cause... and witnesses.... but the direct witnesses have been illegally held back by the president in the House, but in the actual trial, the first hand witnesses could be compelled to testify because this is a pretty serious vote for Senators and they should be allowed to be fully informed and get to the truth, before casting their vote.... otherwise their vote would just be a SHAM.

Surely, you can understand this?

 

[Maxdeath]

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....

Damn you just keep repeating the same stupid stuff, I guess hoping everyone is as stupid as you and will believe it. You and I have been over this before. McConnell said he was working with the White House. As is expected to see what they want to do, as in supply a defense, supply witnesses, supply transcripts etc.
he said that in its current form going off what was presented in the house it will be shot down in the senate as second and third hand hearsay, I took the conversation that I overheard amounts to nothing more then a joke. They need real cause to find him guilty.
You and others hopes and wet dreams are not enough.

that's not what McConnell said.... you can pretend all you want....

he said he was working lock step with them, on whatever they wanted him to do..... to get the president exonerated, an acquittal.

and told Schummer he would not work with him or the prosecution on what they need....

THAT is NOT an impartial juror.... no matter what you claim or your try at a rewrite of history....

Read read things again. Or have someone read it to you.
McConnell is in charge of the Senate. No matter what Pelosi, Schiff or anyone in the house wants or says. It won't change the reality.

 

[Maxdeath]

They need real cause to find him guilty.

they have a real cause... and witnesses.... but the direct witnesses have been illegally held back by the president in the House, but in the actual trial, the first hand witnesses could be compelled to testify because this is a pretty serious vote for Senators and they should be allowed to be fully informed and get to the truth, before casting their vote.... otherwise their vote would just be a SHAM.

Surely, you can understand this?

I take it you were all atwitter when 44 claimed executive privilege. Don't bother pretending you were.
They have hearsay second hand, third hand. They have people who made assumptions only. That is not hard evedince.

You talk about the senators being serious yet you were not worried about the same seriousness from the house. They did not allow certain questions, they did not allow certain witnesses, they even limited who could ask the questions that they allowed to be asked.

I understand that many of the democrats have been calling for impeachment almost before Trump spent his first day in office. Watters has called for Pences impeachment after Trump in some insane attempt to put Pelosi in the Oval Office. Pelosi says they have been trying to impeach Trump for 21/2 years and you call that impartial?
There were democrats and independents who voted against impeachment. One voted only present. Not one Republican voted to impeach. That sounds impartial and not partisan in what world?

 

[Terri4Trump]

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

Shut up you piece of shit. Your whole thread is a steaming turd of nonsense

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Ok, and that would just be wonderful for the country wouldn't it?

what would be all wonderful? Prosecutors later charging a president with his crimes after removal???

in all likelihood, the vice president when made president, would pardon the ex- president, before they were ever charged criminally for a crime... unless it was a crime that caused physical harm or death to another human, imo.

But there can be no removal of any POTUS for high crimes not charged. What will be wonderful will be the inevitable removal of Hysterical Dems by American voters in 2020.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Wait ... are you saying "Trump is a poopy-head" is not grounds for impeachment?

 

[SAYIT]

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.

And here we are battering a bitter loony-leftard and a Nazi scumbag has to fuck it up.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

For Pelosi and our bitter leftards it's about an event that occurred on Nov 8, 2016.

 

[JusticeHammer]

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.

Give it up liar.

 

[Lesh]

45 days. When was the money appropriated by congress?

Before June? And released when?

Sept 11? And only then because Trump got caught trying to use it to extort Ukraine

 

[mascale]

Mainly, the dots are getting connected! There is new evidence. It is directly showing White House Engagement. It does not have to show that Donald John Trump bought an AK-47 and shot up a school in the Ukraine. It only has to support the suspect phone call and the details before and after. Other adults have resigned from public positions already because of implicated, directed behavior.

The famous public orations to "Get Over It" are press conferences reports, from staff--expressing public policy in place. Since there is a criminal timeline established, then even deeming any further resignations in the criminal matters at minimum implicates the Oval Office. That has already been shown, in just recent hours.

Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
( Not a coattail matter, anyone notices--even now delayed until January, per the law on the books!)