Now Enter The Trump "Impoundment Control Act" Criminal Violations

[mascale]

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.!)

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That was all o and ukraine joe.

 

[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

.

 

[mascale]

OKTexas poster has no basis to cite no criminal violation. Trumpies all believe that any MAGA can break into anyone's house, shoot all the babies: And claim no crime.

Trump knew, (the newspaper article inquiry). Trump withheld the lawful military aid, (Minutes after the phone call) Trump did not comply with any of the reporting provisions or timelines.

Had there been compliance, then hearings and Articles of Impeachment likely would have had no basis, and would not have happened. The alternative explanation is that White House didn't dare advise Congress since they knew that what they were doing was not just, "Sensitive," (in the link), but criminal.

In the Link:

". . .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, says 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."

There is also the matter of the International Treaty about reciprocal criminal investigations--not even mentioned by Trump or RNC. Evidence can be presented in a Fair Trial.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Then there is the Christian prayer of "Thy Kingdom Come:" Matthew 25:14-20!)

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

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.!)

Now ya got him

How do you say impeachment is urgent because "crime in progress" and "clear and present danger" then hold up sending it to the Senate..?........... You can't make this shit up

 

[mascale]

The Congress is lawfully in Recess, showing that Deplorable Yankee, the poster Teri4Trump, (supporting even baby-harm created in Matthew 25: 14-30), and OK Texas poster: Do not support the law, the Constitution, the lawful Congressional Recess, or the concept of a Fair Trial!

All matters shown!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred
(Can't even muster 45% approval--gettingworse as the excitement and coverage dies down, and the trial becomes more fair!)

 

[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]

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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........

 

[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."

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[MarathonMike]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Hellokitty]

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?

I think it just came to Schifty-schiff in a dream or something...

 

[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?

It is. It's an abuse of power.

No moron... It is not an abuse of power. It would be violation of a law that you did not include in the articles of impeachment..

How is that S T R E C H I N G going for you?

 

[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.

 

[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]

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

 

[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.

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.

Practicing that projection again are we?

 

[Auld Phart]

Send your link to Rep Green.

He needs new ammunition, since this impeachment flopped.

 

[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.

No moron... It is not an abuse of power. It would be violation of a law that you did not include in the articles of impeachment..

How is that S T R E C H I N G going for you?

In legal terminology, how is it not an abuse of power to hide money that was appropriated by Congress to be used as leverage to blackmail an ally country, where that money was already approved to go to the ally?