Enemy of the people: Elon Musk

[ChumpDumper]

Let me know when you uncover dozens of offshore bank accounts funneling money from foreign countries (some of the adversaries) to Trump's family and friends -- with 10% going to the Orange Man.

Let's see all the information ourselves.

They're completely transparent, aren't they?

[Winehole23]

[Yonivore]

that was not proven whatsoever

Okay, Hillary.

[DarrinS]

A week-long screeching about El0n into the void of ST politico forum. Congrats

Ctrl-c Ctrl-v repeat

Maybe, get some sleep?

[Yonivore]

Democrats Uncover Devious Billionaire Plot To Spend Billions Buying Social Media Company To Get President Trump Elected In Order To Access The Treasury Database And Steal Grandma's $695 Social Security Check

[Winehole23]

A week-long screeching about El0n into the void of ST politico forum. Congrats

Ctrl-c Ctrl-v repeat

Maybe, get some sleep?

El0n/Trump hijacking federal transfers, HR and building leases is fairly momentous

[TSA]

USAID IG reports







https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/...g%20021025.pdf

https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/...20Programs.pdf

https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/...010%202024.pdf

https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/...2025-FINAL.pdf

What's the common theme?

[Winehole23]

just hit the snooze bar, Darrin.

you're not paying attention and you don't have anything to say

[Yonivore]

El0n/Trump hijacking federal transfers, HR and building leases is fairly momentous

Perhaps you should read the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Better yet, find one of your Lefty lawyers to explain why this act doesn't apply to the Executive Branch's actions, so far.

Bottom line (but, I encourage you to read the entire Act):

1) This law limits the President’s ability to withhold funds appropriated by Congress.
2) The President can propose to rescind or defer spending, but Congress must approve a rescission within 45 days, or the funds must be released.
3) A deferral (temporary delay) is allowed but must not extend beyond the end of the fiscal year unless Congress agrees.

And, the 45 day limit [on the President's recommendation of a rescission of all or part of funding] is counted in days Congress is in continuous session.

§682, (3) - "'rescission bill' means a bill or joint resolution which only rescinds, in whole or in part, budget authority proposed to be rescinded in a special message transmitted by the President under section 683 of this le, and upon which the Congress completes action before the end of the first period of 45 calendar days of continuous session of the Congress after the date on which the President's message is received by the Congress;..."

My understanding, from the sources I read, are that deferred payments can last through the fiscal year.

The President conformed to the requirement he report these rescissions and deferrals to Congress. Now, withing 45 days (for rescissions), they must address it. It seems to me, these judges and their restraining orders are the ones that are committing the coup.

[Blake]

I wish there was a way that would only affect the dumb s that voted for him

[Blake]

Perhaps you should read the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Better yet, find one of your Lefty lawyers to explain why this act doesn't apply to the Executive Branch's actions, so far.

Bottom line (but, I encourage you to read the entire Act):

1) This law limits the President’s ability to withhold funds appropriated by Congress.
2) The President can propose to rescind or defer spending, but Congress must approve a rescission within 45 days, or the funds must be released.
3) A deferral (temporary delay) is allowed but must not extend beyond the end of the fiscal year unless Congress agrees.

And, the 45 day limit [on the President's recommendation of a rescission of all or part of funding] is counted in days Congress is in continuous session.

§682, (3) - "'rescission bill' means a bill or joint resolution which only rescinds, in whole or in part, budget authority proposed to be rescinded in a special message transmitted by the President under section 683 of this le, and upon which the Congress completes action before the end of the first period of 45 calendar days of continuous session of the Congress after the date on which the President's message is received by the Congress;..."

My understanding, from the sources I read, are that deferred payments can last through the fiscal year.

The President conformed to the requirement he report these rescissions and deferrals to Congress. Now, withing 45 days (for rescissions), they must address it. It seems to me, these judges and their restraining orders are the ones that are committing the coup.

Lol "my understanding"

[Yonivore]

Lol "my understanding"

Read the Act yourself and tell me your understanding.

[Blake]

Read the Act yourself and tell me your understanding.

I'm fine with a judge ruling that's it's probably illegal for the president to withhold funds appropriated by Congress.

[ChumpDumper]

Perhaps you should read the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Better yet, find one of your Lefty lawyers to explain why this act doesn't apply to the Executive Branch's actions, so far.

Bottom line (but, I encourage you to read the entire Act):

1) This law limits the President’s ability to withhold funds appropriated by Congress.
2) The President can propose to rescind or defer spending, but Congress must approve a rescission within 45 days, or the funds must be released.
3) A deferral (temporary delay) is allowed but must not extend beyond the end of the fiscal year unless Congress agrees.

And, the 45 day limit [on the President's recommendation of a rescission of all or part of funding] is counted in days Congress is in continuous session.

§682, (3) - "'rescission bill' means a bill or joint resolution which only rescinds, in whole or in part, budget authority proposed to be rescinded in a special message transmitted by the President under section 683 of this le, and upon which the Congress completes action before the end of the first period of 45 calendar days of continuous session of the Congress after the date on which the President's message is received by the Congress;..."

My understanding, from the sources I read, are that deferred payments can last through the fiscal year.

The President conformed to the requirement he report these rescissions and deferrals to Congress. Now, withing 45 days (for rescissions), they must address it. It seems to me, these judges and their restraining orders are the ones that are committing the coup.

Do you have a link to Trump's special message to Congress?

[Yonivore]

I'm fine with a judge ruling that's it's probably illegal for the president to withhold funds appropriated by Congress.

And, there's your problem. "Probably" isn't a legal position.

[ChumpDumper]

And, there's your problem. "Probably" isn't a legal position.

You can appeal.

[Yonivore]

Do you have a link to Trump's special message to Congress?

According to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President's transmittal does not have to be public. I haven't heard anyone in Congress saying he didn't properly notify them, in accordance with the ICA so, I'm going to presume all the caterwauling we're seeing, out of our elected officials, is just a delay tactic to run out the 45-day clock.

[ChumpDumper]

According to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President's transmittal does not have to be public. I haven't heard anyone in Congress saying he didn't properly notify them, in accordance with the ICA so, I'm going to presume all the caterwauling we're seeing, out of our elected officials, is just a delay tactic to run out the 45-day clock.

So it's a totally secret letter that is being hidden from you?

Why?

What does he have to hide?

[TSA]

Read the Act yourself and tell me your understanding.

He constantly declares anything beyond two sentences a text wall that he will refuse to read...that lazy er isn't going to read the actual act

[ChumpDumper]

He constantly declares anything beyond two sentences a text wall that he will refuse to read...that lazy er isn't going to read the actual act

Isn't the message supposed to be in the Federal Register?

Any special message transmitted under section 683 or 684 of this le, and any supplementary message transmitted under subsection (c), shall be printed in the first issue of the Federal Register published after such transmittal.

Let me know, prof.

[Yonivore]

Isn't the message supposed to be in the Federal Register?

Any special message transmitted under section 683 or 684 of this le, and any supplementary message transmitted under subsection (c), shall be printed in the first issue of the Federal Register published after such transmittal.

Let me know, prof.

The Federal Register is only used for Executive Orders, rules, regulations, and other PUBLIC notices. Since the ICA doesn't describe the notice as being public but, directly to both houses of Congress, it is not required to be published in the Federal Register.

[ChumpDumper]

Latest issue of the Federal Registry is out now. I figure a detailed and itemized accounting of Trump's impoundment actions is available for all of us to see now, right?

[ChumpDumper]

The Federal Register is only used for Executive Orders, rules, regulations, and other PUBLIC notices. Since the ICA doesn't describe the notice as being public but, directly to both houses of Congress, it is not required to be published in the Federal Register.

According to whom?

Any special message transmitted under section 683 or 684 of this le, and any supplementary message transmitted under subsection (c), shall be printed in the first issue of the Federal Register published after such transmittal.

That's basically the definition of a public notice.

Where is the text saying "nuh-uh"?

[Yonivore]

According to whom?

Any special message transmitted under section 683 or 684 of this le, and any supplementary message transmitted under subsection (c), shall be printed in the first issue of the Federal Register published after such transmittal.

That's basically the definition of a public notice.

Where is the text saying "nuh-uh"?

Well, since requirement to publish in the Federal Register only applies to Sections 683 and 684, and, the special notice is contained in section 685; your point is moot. Laws are very specific, Chump.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, since requirement to publish in the Federal Register only applies to Sections 683 and 684, and, the special notice is contained in section 685; your point is moot. Laws are very specific, Chump.

the publication requirement in Section 685 specifically applies to messages sent under Sections 683 and 684

Can you even read?