Now Enter The Trump "Impoundment Control Act" Criminal Violations

[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.

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

Shup ****.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One thing about the Center for Public Integrity is that it is very low profile, It went to court. It petitioned for documents. The documents released were heavily redacted. They show that Donald John Trump specifically new about the Ukraine Aid in advance of the notorious phone call. They show not just that the aid was illegally held up, but that the political appointees, (RNC), covered up specifically the illegal White House Operations.

Trump Administration officials worried Ukraine aid halt violated spending law – Center for Public Integrity

Congress was specifically by-passed.

The emerging timeline shows that the new Ukraine President--An Actor-Comedian not named Reagan, but a show business personality--was aware of the "investigations" requirement way before July 25. Anyone surmises how Ukraine knew enough to vote. Anyone surmises that his Administration knew about the military assistance. DONALD JOHN TRUMP WAS EVEN DISCUSSING OR GAINING APPROVALS FROM PUTIN, WELL IN ADVANCE OF JULY 25. (That is in timeline, shown in the link--with a possible accurate inference of what was being discussed.) Then everything illegal is outlined in the link.

And the Congressional new Trial Date as yet to be set, likely wherein House Managers can present the full case for Removal from Office. Public employees had enough sense of public service to quit, comparing.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Even as in,"What does arithmetic have to do with the money?" Deut 23:19-20 e. g.!)

Trump knew that Soros was using his democrat Party to launder billions through the Ukraine

 

[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?

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?

Pelosi did not call for impeachment for 2 1/2 years....

Few, like Maxine Waters called for impeachment EARLY on, Al Green too....
And those 2 are not the whole Democratic party or many dems... when their calls to impeachment were brought up before the House, the Democratic party turned down impeachment, several times.

Not one republican chose to impeach BECAUSE THEY were being partisan and holding together as a strategy, not because the democrats were being impartial, the Rs were.

The House was serious, the witnesses like the whistle blower were irrelevant to the impeachment or Trump' s impeachment defense.... the Rs were trying to put on a ridiculous dog and pony show for you Trumpets personally..

BECAUSE they had no real first hand witnesses they could call, that could exonerate Trump.

Trump was treated as fairly as Clinton, Nixon and Johnson were....

Trumpy bear needs to put his big boy pants on and stop crying and whining like a baby, and show us some actual facts and witnesses in his own defense, NOT to obfuscate....

YOU KNOW if Obama had self dealt, using military aid, to get an upper hand in the upcoming election, and helped our adversary Russia to have the upper hand above our ally.

You not only would have impeached him, you would have called for his hanging.

 

[Care4all]

One thing about the Center for Public Integrity is that it is very low profile, It went to court. It petitioned for documents. The documents released were heavily redacted. They show that Donald John Trump specifically new about the Ukraine Aid in advance of the notorious phone call. They show not just that the aid was illegally held up, but that the political appointees, (RNC), covered up specifically the illegal White House Operations.

Trump Administration officials worried Ukraine aid halt violated spending law – Center for Public Integrity

Congress was specifically by-passed.

The emerging timeline shows that the new Ukraine President--An Actor-Comedian not named Reagan, but a show business personality--was aware of the "investigations" requirement way before July 25. Anyone surmises how Ukraine knew enough to vote. Anyone surmises that his Administration knew about the military assistance. DONALD JOHN TRUMP WAS EVEN DISCUSSING OR GAINING APPROVALS FROM PUTIN, WELL IN ADVANCE OF JULY 25. (That is in timeline, shown in the link--with a possible accurate inference of what was being discussed.) Then everything illegal is outlined in the link.

And the Congressional new Trial Date as yet to be set, likely wherein House Managers can present the full case for Removal from Office. Public employees had enough sense of public service to quit, comparing.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Even as in,"What does arithmetic have to do with the money?" Deut 23:19-20 e. g.!)

Trump knew that Soros was using his democrat Party to launder billions through the Ukraine

Correction, the USA chose to support the Ukraine, including grass root anti corruption groups.

 

[berg80]

The fact is the administration had till Sep 30 to release the aid, it was released on Sep 11, there was no violation. Deal with it commies, you're running out of straws to grasp for. LMAO

.

Nope.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?

Chairs Yarmuth and Lowey Call on White House to Release Documents on the Withholding of Ukraine, Foreign Aid Funds

Requests for the documents regarding the hold Trump put on the military aid to Ukraine are part of the reason he is illegally stonewalling all requests for any documents.

 

[berg80]

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]

Except that the funds in question were moved to the recipient ahead of the deadline date...Sorry, try another one.

LOL.. Trump did meet the deadline and broke no law... But they will stretch

Are you sure about that? At the least it's a matter of some dispute.

What a Nixon-era law means for Trump, Ukraine aid

 

[mascale]

The Republican Contention that they have an "Anti-case" exonerating the White House is now shown to definitely not exist. The Democrats contend for their case via the Articles of Impeachment.
______________________
Republicans in Congress, with White House support, have said the Democrats’ criticisms are unjustified, citing multiple reasons: Ukraine, they say, did not even know the aid was being withheld until it was reported publicly by Politico about five weeks after the holdup began – making the delay virtually irrelevant to any actions by Ukraine’s government. Trump was only concerned, they say, about limiting corruption in Ukraine.

They also have said that the pause wasn’t extraordinary: “It is not unusual for U.S. foreign assistance to become delayed,” said a House Republican staff report released on Dec. 2. The provision of aid to Lebanon was delayed in the fall of this year, for example, after the president there resigned, their report noted. Aid to Afghanistan was delayed in September due to corruption concerns. During the summer, aid to Central America was reprogrammed to compel governments there to curtail the flow of their migrants to the United States. And in 2017, aid to Egypt was frozen over human rights concerns.

But all the aid interruptions cited by the Republicans were publicly announced and reported to Congress, as the Impoundment Act requires. The holdup in the Ukraine aid, in contrast, was kept quiet. When Sandy was asked during his testimony if he had ever previously issued orders like those used to stop the flow of aid to Ukraine, he replied, “I don’t recall an example just like this.” It was, he emphasized, a unique event.

Trump, moreover, didn’t raise the issue of Ukraine corruption with Zelensky in two phone calls, one on the day of Zelensky’s election, with the second on July 25 – despite having been urged to do so in advance by his own aides. And the Pentagon had no overarching concerns about the magnitude of corruption or the path on which Zelensky had put the country, according to Cooper’s testimony. A top Pentagon official, policy chief John Rood, had previously certified in a May 23 letter to Congress that Ukraine “has taken substantial actions … for the purposes of decreasing corruption [and] increasing accountability.” He said, “There remain areas that require significant attention,” but stated that Ukraine has met all conditions for the remaining U.S. aid to be provided.

Cooper said that at the interagency meeting of so-called “deputies” or high-ranking officials from around the government on July 26, “all I had to go on was that the President is concerned about corruption in Ukraine and somehow therefore we were holding security assistance. So the conversation at the deputies, a lot of the members were saying, you know, corruption, yes, it’s been an issue. Yes, it’s a concern. Yes, there’s a long way to go, but we’re on the right path, you know, we can move forward. So it felt Iike a conversation where people were trying to explain how corruption shouldn’t be a concern.”

After the Government Accountability Office announced it was auditing the potential mishandling of the funds, OMB general counsel Mark Paoletta, a former legal adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, asserted in a Dec. 9 legal opinion that the holdup was not a policy “deferral,” which would have been illegal, but merely a “programmatic delay” to examine if the funds were going to be used effectively. “It was OMB’s understanding that a brief period was needed, prior to the funds expiring, to engage in a policy process regarding those funds,” Paoletta said without further explanation.

But Cooper, in her testimony, said that while the issue of continuing corruption in Ukraine was mentioned at several interagency meetings during the funding pause, the conversation didn’t amount to a new review of the topic. And one of the largely-redacted Defense Department documents provided on Dec. 12 to Public Integrity at the insistence of a federal judge hints at a sharp disagreement about the propriety of the aid holdup between one of her colleagues, Pentagon comptroller Elaine McCusker, and Duffey at OMB. “Seems like we continue to talk past each other a bit,” McCusker said in an email on Aug. 20.

[B]Sam Berger, a lawyer who was a senior counselor and policy adviser at OMB from 2010 to 2015 before becoming a White House adviser to President Obama, [URL='https://www.justsecurity.org/67738/federal-criminal-offenses-and-the-impeachment-of-donald-j-trump/']says[/URL] that in his view, Trump’s holdup of the funding “constituted an illegal impoundment” and that none of the administration’s claims about it “pass legal muster.” A former assistant attorney general and special counsel to the Defense Department, Jack Goldsmith, said in an Oct. 16 article in a blog called Lawfare that he, too, believes that despite some uncertainty, the 55-day long aid holdup appeared to be in “contravention” of the Impoundment Act, which limits any deferral to 45 days and otherwise requires congressional approval. No such approval was ever granted.
[/B]
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirrred!"
(If Moses was actually skilled in the Subjugation Arts of Egypt, (Acts 7), How is Subjugation arithmetic attributed to a deity, (Deut. 23: 19-20)--unless maybe Pharaoh(?)--a maybe larger issue(?)!)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One thing about the Center for Public Integrity is that it is very low profile, It went to court. It petitioned for documents. The documents released were heavily redacted. They show that Donald John Trump specifically new about the Ukraine Aid in advance of the notorious phone call. They show not just that the aid was illegally held up, but that the political appointees, (RNC), covered up specifically the illegal White House Operations.

Trump Administration officials worried Ukraine aid halt violated spending law – Center for Public Integrity

Congress was specifically by-passed.

The emerging timeline shows that the new Ukraine President--An Actor-Comedian not named Reagan, but a show business personality--was aware of the "investigations" requirement way before July 25. Anyone surmises how Ukraine knew enough to vote. Anyone surmises that his Administration knew about the military assistance. DONALD JOHN TRUMP WAS EVEN DISCUSSING OR GAINING APPROVALS FROM PUTIN, WELL IN ADVANCE OF JULY 25. (That is in timeline, shown in the link--with a possible accurate inference of what was being discussed.) Then everything illegal is outlined in the link.

And the Congressional new Trial Date as yet to be set, likely wherein House Managers can present the full case for Removal from Office. Public employees had enough sense of public service to quit, comparing.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Even as in,"What does arithmetic have to do with the money?" Deut 23:19-20 e. g.!)

Trump knew that Soros was using his democrat Party to launder billions through the Ukraine

Correction, the USA chose to support the Ukraine, including grass root anti corruption groups.

Is funneling billions to Soros and democrat families corrupt?

 

[berg80]

Two budget staffers resigned after voicing concerns about halted Ukraine aid, official says
Two budget staffers resigned after voicing concerns about halted Ukraine aid, official says

Two staffers for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) resigned after expressing frustrations about a hold on military assistance to Ukraine that is now at the center of the impeachment inquiry, a witness has testified.

Mark Sandy, an OMB staffer, testified this month that the two staffers, one of whom was in the legal division, had resigned partially due to frustrations with the unexplained aid freeze, according to a transcript of his testimony released Tuesday.

Sandy recalled that one individual who resigned had "expressed some frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold," according to the transcript, but he noted that he was "reluctant to speak to someone else's motivations."

 

[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?

Pelosi did not call for impeachment for 2 1/2 years....

Few, like Maxine Waters called for impeachment EARLY on, Al Green too....
And those 2 are not the whole Democratic party or many dems... when their calls to impeachment were brought up before the House, the Democratic party turned down impeachment, several times.

Not one republican chose to impeach BECAUSE THEY were being partisan and holding together as a strategy, not because the democrats were being impartial, the Rs were.

The House was serious, the witnesses like the whistle blower were irrelevant to the impeachment or Trump' s impeachment defense.... the Rs were trying to put on a ridiculous dog and pony show for you Trumpets personally..

BECAUSE they had no real first hand witnesses they could call, that could exonerate Trump.

Trump was treated as fairly as Clinton, Nixon and Johnson were....

Trumpy bear needs to put his big boy pants on and stop crying and whining like a baby, and show us some actual facts and witnesses in his own defense, NOT to obfuscate....

YOU KNOW if Obama had self dealt, using military aid, to get an upper hand in the upcoming election, and helped our adversary Russia to have the upper hand above our ally.

You not only would have impeached him, you would have called for his hanging.

Funny funny that you also leave out so much. But I expect that from you.
Did you somehow forget AOC and the rest? Do you even recall one of them saying we are going to impeach the moth****ker? That was a long time before his phone call.
Pelosi stated that with Russia it had been a process that has been in the works for 21/2 years. If you need reminding I can post the videos.

You claim that the republicans were being partisan but you somehow left out the Dems that did not vote yes, you left out the independents that did not. Were they also partisan? Funny how you accuse others but don't see the partisan in front of you.

How do you know what was relevant? None of them were brought forth, none were questioned. Schiff ran his show like a third Riech trial. Only certain questions, certain people may ask, only certain time limits, only certain people may testify. Schiff claimed he spent time with the whistleblower one time then claimed he had not. Schiff did a reading of the transcript but when he was called out on his reading he claimed it was a parody. A parody is serious?

So you now know that Biden is the one that will be chosen to run by the DNC? Well we might as well cancel the democrat primaries and tell Warren and the others to go home. What oh what would he have done if Warren had been the chosen one? I think it is more about being upset that anyone would look into dem dirty tricks. But the financing of the Steele dossier was completely fine.

44 never would have been impeached. He had that magic little race card no one wanted to touch.

Once again there is a thing called executive privilege that even the Supreme Court has ruled is not only legal but nessecary for the president and his people to do their job. They can rule on a case by case basis but the Democrates were in so big a hurry that they did not want to wait. They need something to bolster their failing candidates. The funny part is it seems to be having the opposite effect.

Let Pelosi keep the articles in her pretend bid to be head of the senate. If I were advising Trump I would be using every opportunity to beat the democrats over the head with them and their failure to release them to the senate. I would be asking the Supreme Court to force the Dems to release them. I would be yelling from the mountain tops that the senate trial would be as fair and well done as the house. I would then call at the very least Schiff as a witness and ask how, when, were and how long he met with the whistleblower. I would call Biden and his son. The I would be declaring that any one currently running for president must recuse themselves because of a conflict of intrest.
I would end the trail in the senate as quickly as possible and only call those new witnesses. I would then call for a vote.

 

[j-mac]

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]

Except that the funds in question were moved to the recipient ahead of the deadline date...Sorry, try another one.

LOL.. Trump did meet the deadline and broke no law... But they will stretch

Are you sure about that? At the least it's a matter of some dispute.

What a Nixon-era law means for Trump, Ukraine aid

From your own article which I assume from your post here, you didn't read....

"If the president is only asking to temporarily delay spending, then congressional approval is not required."

also

"Spending cannot be stalled through the end of the fiscal year"...

1. This is Schiff stretching.

2. The funds were released before the deadline, and before the fiscal year...

This is just more reaching by triggered Democrats to make up ANYTHING to wipe out 2016...pathetic.

 

[mascale]

Actually, the White House is not asserting so much the "Executive Privilege" concept as the "Absolutely In Denial That Even The July 25 Phone Call Happened," Concept. Only a parody of the actual transcript has ever been made available: Worthy of a Parody on its face.

______________
Two staffers for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) resigned after expressing frustrations about a hold on military assistance to Ukraine that is now at the center of the impeachment inquiry, a witness has testified.

Mark Sandy, an OMB staffer, testified this month that the two staffers, one of whom was in the legal division, had resigned partially due to frustrations with the unexplained aid freeze, according to a transcript of his testimony released Tuesday.

Sandy recalled that one individual who resigned had "expressed some frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold," according to the transcript, but he noted that he was "reluctant to speak to someone else's motivations."

He was also asked whether the OMB legal division employee said they were leaving "at least in part because of their concerns on frustrations about the hold on Ukraine security assistance."

"Yes, in terms of that process, in part," Sandy responded.

The officials were not named in the transcript.

A senior administration official categorized the assertion that the two officials resigned in part over the aid freeze as false in an email to The Hill.

Sandy also testified that he believed President Trump had directed the hold on Ukraine aid.
___________________
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(If "They Kingdom Come. . . ." actually happened, does that mean that Matt 25:14-30: Has never happened?)

 

[OKTexas]

The fact is the administration had till Sep 30 to release the aid, it was released on Sep 11, there was no violation. Deal with it commies, you're running out of straws to grasp for. LMAO

.

Nope.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?

Chairs Yarmuth and Lowey Call on White House to Release Documents on the Withholding of Ukraine, Foreign Aid Funds

Requests for the documents regarding the hold Trump put on the military aid to Ukraine are part of the reason he is illegally stonewalling all requests for any documents.

Perhaps you should look up the definitions of "withheld" and delayed. The law required an anti-corruption certification. At the time of the call the new president had been in place less than two months and the new parliament hadn't been seated. Once the new parliament passed new tough anti-corruption laws in August and Zelensky signed them, the aid was released days later. The fact is all you commies have are your wishes and a hand full of cold dog shit.

.

 

[BWK]

One thing about the Center for Public Integrity is that it is very low profile, It went to court. It petitioned for documents. The documents released were heavily redacted. They show that Donald John Trump specifically new about the Ukraine Aid in advance of the notorious phone call. They show not just that the aid was illegally held up, but that the political appointees, (RNC), covered up specifically the illegal White House Operations.

Trump Administration officials worried Ukraine aid halt violated spending law – Center for Public Integrity

Congress was specifically by-passed.

The emerging timeline shows that the new Ukraine President--An Actor-Comedian not named Reagan, but a show business personality--was aware of the "investigations" requirement way before July 25. Anyone surmises how Ukraine knew enough to vote. Anyone surmises that his Administration knew about the military assistance. DONALD JOHN TRUMP WAS EVEN DISCUSSING OR GAINING APPROVALS FROM PUTIN, WELL IN ADVANCE OF JULY 25. (That is in timeline, shown in the link--with a possible accurate inference of what was being discussed.) Then everything illegal is outlined in the link.

And the Congressional new Trial Date as yet to be set, likely wherein House Managers can present the full case for Removal from Office. Public employees had enough sense of public service to quit, comparing.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Even as in,"What does arithmetic have to do with the money?" Deut 23:19-20 e. g.!)

Trump knew that Soros was using his democrat Party to launder billions through the Ukraine

Correction, the USA chose to support the Ukraine, including grass root anti corruption groups.

Is funneling billions to Soros and democrat families corrupt?

Seriously? Your off topic cowardly post just tells us you have shit for a rebuttal. How embarrassing. Get a clue idiot; Trump Administration officials worried Ukraine aid halt violated spending law – Center for Public Integrity

 

[BWK]

The fact is the administration had till Sep 30 to release the aid, it was released on Sep 11, there was no violation. Deal with it commies, you're running out of straws to grasp for. LMAO

.

Nope.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?

Chairs Yarmuth and Lowey Call on White House to Release Documents on the Withholding of Ukraine, Foreign Aid Funds

Requests for the documents regarding the hold Trump put on the military aid to Ukraine are part of the reason he is illegally stonewalling all requests for any documents.

Perhaps you should look up the definitions of "withheld" and delayed. The law required an anti-corruption certification. At the time of the call the new president had been in place less than two months and the new parliament hadn't been seated. Once the new parliament passed new tough anti-corruption laws in August and Zelensky signed them, the aid was released days later. The fact is all you commies have are your wishes and a hand full of cold dog shit.

.

Negative! They still haven't received $35 million. And the money was released when Trump found out that the scheme had been exposed.

 

[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]

Except that the funds in question were moved to the recipient ahead of the deadline date...Sorry, try another one.

LOL.. Trump did meet the deadline and broke no law... But they will stretch

Are you sure about that? At the least it's a matter of some dispute.

What a Nixon-era law means for Trump, Ukraine aid

From your own article which I assume from your post here, you didn't read....

"If the president is only asking to temporarily delay spending, then congressional approval is not required."

also

"Spending cannot be stalled through the end of the fiscal year"...

1. This is Schiff stretching.

2. The funds were released before the deadline, and before the fiscal year...

This is just more reaching by triggered Democrats to make up ANYTHING to wipe out 2016...pathetic.

Wrong! They haven't received all the funds.

 

[BWK]

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!

What election?

 

[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!

What election?

The one Putin controlled.

 

[BWK]

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.

So, you support those with something to hide. What a coward.

 

[BWK]

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!

What election?

The one Putin controlled.

I can go along with that. The illegal election of 2016. Thanks!