HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kentuck » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 102,512

About Me

This land is your land; This land is my land.

Journal Archives

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



What is the Impoundment Control Act?

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress’ power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – “Impoundment Control” – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office.


Why is the ICA important?

Today, 45 years after the ICA became law, Congress once again confronts a President attempting to push past the long-recognized boundaries of executive budgetary power. This year, for the second straight year, the Trump Administration reportedly considered issuing rescission requests for certain foreign aid and security assistance accounts less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year, when the funds in question would expire. In the closing weeks of fiscal 2019, OMB withheld funding in these accounts in a manner inconsistent with longstanding procedures and policies. The House Budget and Appropriations Committees have serious concerns that President Trump and his administration violated the ICA in withholding these funds. The committees are examining when, why, and how these funds were withheld; and whether these actions prevented agencies from spending the full amount that Congress provided for these activities, thus thwarting the will of Congress. Congress will not bend to executive overreach. It will defend its constitutional power of the purse and the fundamental checks and balances that are critical to our constitutional republic.

And all thru the Senate, not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse..

All the Republicans were silent.

Nobody knows if they are silent out of respect for the process, or if they are silent because they are all standing behind Donald Trump?

Normally, we might expect some comment from one or two Senators that might have questions about the lies and the actions of their president?

But, all we get is Simon and Garfunkel...

Is Trump "obstructing justice" with his tweets and public comments?

How much interference is permissible before a Senate trial?

Is it OK to denigrate the process, the facts, and the legislators bringing the charges against him?

Why is it OK to hear the lies but not the facts?

Is it impossible to witness a fair trial under these circumstances?

Is it simply a matter of "free speech"?

Will the House ever get the chance to interview Don McGahn as a witness?

Reportedly, a judge is scheduled to make a ruling on January 3rd. His only appeal left is to the Supreme Court, is my understanding? Will they hear his case?

I think Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats would love to hear the testimony of Don McGahn. If he testifies to the same facts that he swore to the Special Counsel, then it would be incumbent upon the Democrats to file another Article of Impeachment. Don McGahn has always been the primary witness for obstruction of justice.

Depending on the speed of the decisions, this could very well happen. They can run but they can't hide forever.

America is baffled.

W.C. Fields is credited with once saying, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit."

America is up to its eyeballs in bullshit. Is there anyone that can shovel more bullshit than Rudy Giuliani? Donald Trump may be a close second?

Even the "religious" people are caught up in this shitstorm. The so-called "Evangelicals" sold their souls for a couple of shovelfuls of bullshit. They convinced themselves they were looking at the big picture - they were getting judges. They sold out.

The lies have become brazen. They whine and moan about how Nancy Pelosi is holding up the Articles of Impeachment from reaching the US Senate. They hesitate to mention that they received Articles of Impeachment on Bill Clinton on the 19th of December and did not address them until they returned from the holidays on January 6th of the following year.

So, they are lying. They are doing the backstroke in an ocean of bullshit.

Just my opinion.

McConnell wants Trump treated no different than Clinton...

That means he's going to give his blood, and testify on camera, under oath, with only three witnesses?

Sounds fair.

This latest email, gotten with a FOIA request, is another reason why it is such a gamble for McConnell and the Republicans. They do not know what might be uncovered tomorrow?

Ninety minutes after Trump got off the phone with Zelensky, a secret email was going out to a small discreet number of people, with directions to keep it very close to their vest.

Why did they hold off on the funds to Ukraine?

The people have a right to know.


"Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration's plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process," Mike Duffey, the White House official in the Office of Management and Budget responsible for overseeing national security money and a Trump political appointee, wrote to select OMB and Pentagon officials on July 25.

"Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute direction," Duffey said.

McConnell wants same votes that they took during Clinton impeachment?

It would consist of two votes: The first vote would be to debate the Articles that come over from the House. Then, they would vote whether or not to have witnesses?

Mitch must know his count already?

Neither Schumer nor Pelosi have yet responded, to the best of my knowledge?

Treat Me Nice

What the truth appears to be?

It appears to be much more serious than what has been reported thus far.

Yes, Donald Trump wanted Ukraine to help him destroy the reputation of one of his political opponents and withheld much-needed military aid as a means to accomplish his goal. Then, he tried to cover it up.

He had Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine working to tear down any opposition to his plans, including firing the Ukraine Ambassador, Marie Yovonovitch. He and Rudy were getting advice from Paul Manafort from prison before they went on their Ukraine mission.

But the bigger story appears to be about "who was paying Rudy Giuliani"? And for what purpose?

Rudy was working with two Ukraine nationals out of Florida and other Ukrainian officials from a previous regime in Ukraine. Rudy was being paid by one of the Ukraine nationals, Lev Parnas, who was getting his support from Dmitry Firtash, a close friend of Putin who was exiled in Vienna, Austria. The last reports were that Rudy was paid $500,000 for his most recent efforts.

The purpose of Firtash's money to Parnas and Giuliani appears to have been to tear down the struggling Ukraine government with lies and propaganda. All their efforts in Ukraine was to help Vladimir Putin and Russia, including Donald Trump's withholding of aid to the new Ukrainian president.

On closer inspection, it does look like Donald Trump was assisting with this Russian effort in Europe and the United States. Whether intentional or not, he was helping to weaken the democracies around the world, including the United States. Why was he doing it? That is a question we have not yet answered.

It has been reported that Firtash was getting his funding directly from Putin, before funneling it to Rudy and his associates? This appears to be the larger truth in this investigation.

"The American people do not deserve to know the truth"...

That seems to be the Republican argument against permitting witnesses to testify in an impeachment trial in the Senate?

Over 70% of the people polled support witnesses in the trial. What are Republicans trying to hide? I think we all know the answer.

Are Republicans afraid of the truths that might come out? What are they trying to cover up?

They are telling the people they have no need to know if their President committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »