Now Enter The Trump "Impoundment Control Act" Criminal Violations

[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]

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?

First you have to get straight what happened, not the silly theory that Schiff, and the media fed you until you believed it.

 

[BWK]

Send your link to Rep Green.

He needs new ammunition, since this impeachment flopped.

He doesn't need it. Trump was impeached by legal and evidence based information that no Republican can legally argue down.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Send your link to Rep Green.

He needs new ammunition, since this impeachment flopped.

He doesn't need it. Trump was impeached by legal and evidence based information that no Republican can legally argue down.

Tell me again what CRIME was your impeachment based on? I'll Wait...

 

[Auld Phart]

Send your link to Rep Green.

He needs new ammunition, since this impeachment flopped.

He doesn't need it. Trump was impeached by legal and evidence based information that no Republican can legally argue down.

and yet, it won't remove him from office.

which is what Green, and the Fab 4 want.

 

[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?

First you have to get straight what happened, not the silly theory that Schiff, and the media fed you until you believed it.

The explanation of what happened was already proven through evidence of seventeen witnesses and documents. It already got straight; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

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."

Nice try.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BWK]

Send your link to Rep Green.

He needs new ammunition, since this impeachment flopped.

He doesn't need it. Trump was impeached by legal and evidence based information that no Republican can legally argue down.

and yet, it won't remove him from office.

which is what Green, and the Fab 4 want.

We'll, that's up to a corrupt Republican RICO organization who have already violated their oath as traitors to this country, and surrendered our national security for their own personal gain. The fact that you don't care about that proves just how much you hate this country. But, we already knew that.

 

[j-mac]

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?

First you have to get straight what happened, not the silly theory that Schiff, and the media fed you until you believed it.

The explanation of what happened was already proven through evidence of seventeen witnesses and documents. It already got straight; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

Tell me what witness had any first hand knowledge of the President's motive, much less anything else in this flimsy claim...I'll give you a hint, not one....In fact, Schiff's star, Sondlin [sic] testified that the one and only time he asked the President directly what he wanted from Zelinsky, Trump's reply was "Nothing"....

Nah, face it, you've been duped, and still rely on the network that duped 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."

Nice try.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It isn't a try any more. It's called "impeached." The world, not just this country knows who and what the Republican crime syndicate is all about now. They have been exposed and the patriots of this country will take it back from the treasonous scum who tried to steal it.

 

[BWK]

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?

First you have to get straight what happened, not the silly theory that Schiff, and the media fed you until you believed it.

The explanation of what happened was already proven through evidence of seventeen witnesses and documents. It already got straight; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

Tell me what witness had any first hand knowledge of the President's motive, much less anything else in this flimsy claim...I'll give you a hint, not one....In fact, Schiff's star, Sondlin [sic] testified that the one and only time he asked the President directly what he wanted from Zelinsky, Trump's reply was "Nothing"....

Nah, face it, you've been duped, and still rely on the network that duped you.

The president. He admitted it himself to the world. We heard it from him.

Trump's talk with Sondland saying he wanted nothing came after Trump got caught holding the money. Trump got caught. Try again.

 

[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?

It is. It's an abuse of power.

Sure it is. That’s why no one mentioned it.

Go tell Nancy her work is crappy and she needs to amend the articles of impeachment.

No wonder she’s a coward to give it to the Senate.

 

[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."

Nice try.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It isn't a try any more. It's called "impeached." The world, not just this country knows who and what the Republican crime syndicate is all about now. They have been exposed and the patriots of this country will take it back from the treasonous scum who tried to steal it.

Nope, another lie...He is not impeached until Pelosi turns over the charge to the Senate...She hasn't done that, so the process is not done...

 

[Terri4Trump]

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]

More fantasy bullshit

Russia Part Two

 

[j-mac]

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?

First you have to get straight what happened, not the silly theory that Schiff, and the media fed you until you believed it.

The explanation of what happened was already proven through evidence of seventeen witnesses and documents. It already got straight; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

Tell me what witness had any first hand knowledge of the President's motive, much less anything else in this flimsy claim...I'll give you a hint, not one....In fact, Schiff's star, Sondlin [sic] testified that the one and only time he asked the President directly what he wanted from Zelinsky, Trump's reply was "Nothing"....

Nah, face it, you've been duped, and still rely on the network that duped you.

The president. He admitted it himself to the world. We heard it from him.

Trump's talk with Sondland saying he wanted nothing came after Trump got caught holding the money. Trump got caught. Try again.

Quote please? Not that you have one.

 

[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]

More fantasy bullshit

Russia Part Two

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

 

[BWK]

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?

First you have to get straight what happened, not the silly theory that Schiff, and the media fed you until you believed it.

The explanation of what happened was already proven through evidence of seventeen witnesses and documents. It already got straight; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

Tell me what witness had any first hand knowledge of the President's motive, much less anything else in this flimsy claim...I'll give you a hint, not one....In fact, Schiff's star, Sondlin [sic] testified that the one and only time he asked the President directly what he wanted from Zelinsky, Trump's reply was "Nothing"....

Nah, face it, you've been duped, and still rely on the network that duped you.

The president. He admitted it himself to the world. We heard it from him.

Trump's talk with Sondland saying he wanted nothing came after Trump got caught holding the money. Trump got caught. Try again.

Quote please? Not that you have one.

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

 

[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]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Sure it is. That’s why no one mentioned it.

Go tell Nancy her work is crappy and she needs to amend the articles of impeachment.

No wonder she’s a coward to give it to the Senate.

You aren't saying or debating anything. Take a hike. You're a loser and a dumb ass who says shit.

 

[j-mac]

First you have to get straight what happened, not the silly theory that Schiff, and the media fed you until you believed it.

The explanation of what happened was already proven through evidence of seventeen witnesses and documents. It already got straight; //www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-ukraine-docs-show-concern-withholding-aide-was-illegal-75545157799

Tell me what witness had any first hand knowledge of the President's motive, much less anything else in this flimsy claim...I'll give you a hint, not one....In fact, Schiff's star, Sondlin [sic] testified that the one and only time he asked the President directly what he wanted from Zelinsky, Trump's reply was "Nothing"....

Nah, face it, you've been duped, and still rely on the network that duped you.

The president. He admitted it himself to the world. We heard it from him.

Trump's talk with Sondland saying he wanted nothing came after Trump got caught holding the money. Trump got caught. Try again.

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.