Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Now Enter The Trump "Impoundment Control Act" Criminal Violations
- Thread starter mascale
- Start date
They have got their panties in a wad because this case against Trump was such a slam dunk, they come here to show their ass and ignorance for all to see. These are some freaked out losers people. They know there is zero defense of this criminal, and there isn't a damn thing they can do to change it, other than to go all out stupid on us.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...Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?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]
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.
Nailed your butt to the wall. Now I’m going to box your ears.You aren't saying or debating anything. Take a hike. You're a loser and a dumb ass who says shit.Sure it is. That’s why no one mentioned it.It is. It's an abuse of power.Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?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]
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 reading something on a moonbat website does not override what the House of Representatives have documented.
If it’s not a criminal case how did Schiff obtain the phone records of private US Citizens?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...Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?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]
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.
Your non-existent arguing points are burying the shit out of you. You aren't defending Trump on anything. You idiots hurt more than help when you show up here with zero arguing points to the facts that have been presented. The desperation is just over the top for these Trump stooges.I don't,Trump does. /www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmlZ85RHPIThe president. He admitted it himself to the world. We heard it from him.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.
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.
Bwahhaaaaa! Brooke Baldwin from CNN? Are you kidding me? Good grief, smarten up young man...You really are gullible if you believe that crap.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
LOLFrom 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...Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?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]
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.
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..
Your non-existent arguing points are burying the shit out of you. You aren't defending Trump on anything. You idiots hurt more than help when you show up here with zero arguing points to the facts that have been presented. The desperation is just over the top for these Trump stooges.I don't,Trump does. /www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmlZ85RHPIThe president. He admitted it himself to the world. We heard it from him.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.
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.
Bwahhaaaaa! Brooke Baldwin from CNN? Are you kidding me? Good grief, smarten up young man...You really are gullible if you believe that crap.
The only fact here is that you are a complete dumbass....It must be hard losing so much.
Tolerance and your stupidity are not synonymous.That's just a chicken shit rant with no substance. Lol! Another Trump Toad who says nothing.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
"Trump Toad" eh? And people say liberals are tolerant....ha, silly people.
Tolerance and your stupidity are not synonymous.That's just a chicken shit rant with no substance. Lol! Another Trump Toad who says nothing.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
"Trump Toad" eh? And people say liberals are tolerant....ha, silly people.
I've forgotten more than you'll ever know...
what would be all wonderful? Prosecutors later charging a president with his crimes after removal???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...Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?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]
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?
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.
LOl! Damn son, did you get that line from your third grade class?Your non-existent arguing points are burying the shit out of you. You aren't defending Trump on anything. You idiots hurt more than help when you show up here with zero arguing points to the facts that have been presented. The desperation is just over the top for these Trump stooges.I don't,Trump does. /www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmlZ85RHPIThe 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.
Bwahhaaaaa! Brooke Baldwin from CNN? Are you kidding me? Good grief, smarten up young man...You really are gullible if you believe that crap.
The only fact here is that you are a complete dumbass....It must be hard losing so much.
You're boring and you don't say shit. Get lost.Tolerance and your stupidity are not synonymous.That's just a chicken shit rant with no substance. Lol! Another Trump Toad who says nothing.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
"Trump Toad" eh? And people say liberals are tolerant....ha, silly people.
I've forgotten more than you'll ever know...
You took the time to think?Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?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]
I think it just came to Schifty-schiff in a dream or something...
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
You dont, so some one with a brain must...You took the time to think?Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?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]
I think it just came to Schifty-schiff in a dream or something...
None of congress's oversight involves criminal statutes and them prosecuting...? They still have subpoena power, to investigate.If it’s not a criminal case how did Schiff obtain the phone records of private US Citizens?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...Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?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]
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.
I heard on the news that oversight committees can get the meta data phone records, and have done so previously as well...
are you saying that is not true?
Tijn Von Ingersleben
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2018
- 8,558
- 2,592
- 290
- Banned
- #57
BWK...are you a shifty, Christ killer bent on destroying our president?
Yep. Trump being mean and doesn’t obey Democrats is a nonstarter. That’s why Pelosi won’t hand it over to impeach Trump.LOLFrom 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...Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?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]
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.
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..
No, Trump did that himself. I just cover the facts and don't live a life of fantasy like Trump and his Toads.BWK...are you a shifty, Christ killer bent on destroying our president?
You just said it wasn’t a criminal investigation, you can’t keep flipping.None of congress's oversight involves criminal statutes and them prosecuting...? They still have subpoena power, to investigate.If it’s not a criminal case how did Schiff obtain the phone records of private US Citizens?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...Then why isn’t it mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment?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]
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.
I heard on the news that oversight committees can get the meta data phone records, and have done so previously as well...
are you saying that is not true?
And no, it is against the law to obtain and publicize phone records of private citizens.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 236
- Replies
- 151
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 195
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 358
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 78
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 140
- Replies
- 3K
- Views
- 40K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8217
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 475
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-