Re: Trump
« Reply #4780 on: January 24, 2020, 04:21:19 PM »
Guess that's a 'no'.


Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?
The Impoundment Control Act

Cause they didn't write it out, and they haven't even verbalized it in front of the Senate.
Probably because it has nothing to do with the impeachment trial. The law spells out what needs to be done in the event it isn't being followed, which hasn't been done so this "violation" isn't really relevant. I am sure you have read the act by now and know this already.
Why would this sentence:
"Nothing contained in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, shall be construed as—

(1) asserting or conceding the constitutional powers or limitations of either the Congress or the President;"

not immediately point out to any lawyer or judge reading it that no law was broken?
Because they, unlike you, know what it means?
Its basic legal code that states that the constitution superscendes this document.  Nothing more.

Quote
Further, a couple of Executive Orders appear to have been signed (Nixon and then amended by Reagan)  delegating the reporting functions, rights, and responsibilities, to the Director of OMB.

Trump doesn't even come into the equation.

So, back to square one.

No law violated.
Site the executive orders please or accept the law was broken.
Okay.

Here's the language from the link junker provided:

"Codification
Section was formerly classified to section 1404 of Title 31 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 31, Money and Finance, by Pub. L. 97–258, §1, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 877.

Ex. Ord. No. 11845. Delegation of Certain Reporting Functions to Director of Office of Management and Budget
Ex. Ord. No. 11845, Mar. 24, 1975, 40 F.R. 13299, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 12608, Sept. 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617, provided:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344; 88 Stat. 332, (2 U.S.C. 681 et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the Act) [subchapters I and II of this chapter], and section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is hereby designated and empowered to exercise, as of October 1, 1974 without ratification or other action of the President (1) the functions required by sections 1014(b) and 1014(d) of the Act [subsecs. (b) and (d) of this section] of transmitting to the Comptroller General of the United States and to the Office of the Federal Register copies of special messages transmitted pursuant to section 1012 or 1013 (2 U.S.C. 683 and 684) of the Act; and (2) the function conferred upon the President by section 1014(e) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 685(e)) of submitting to the Congress cumulative reports of proposed rescissions, reservations, and deferrals of budget authority."

So you can see the two Executive Directives.

Stating no president is required to report to Congress concerning foreign aid rescission, reservations, or deferrals.

Codified into law.

Please accept the fact no law was broken by Trump in this matter.

That is why the House did not cite any laws broken in the two bogus impeachment articles.

They couldn't.

And neither can you.


*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5221
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4781 on: January 24, 2020, 05:50:58 PM »
You, uhhh.. you suck at law, you know that?

What you posted states that said director has the power to do those things without presidential approval.  It does not make him the one ultimately responsible.

Its like a manager assigning his employee a task that he, the manager, was told to do.  If the employee doesn't do it, it is ultimately the manager who is responsible.

No where does it say that the responsibility is shifted from the president but rather the power to do that job is given to a designated person.


Re: Trump
« Reply #4782 on: January 24, 2020, 06:47:16 PM »
You, uhhh.. you suck at law, you know that?

What you posted states that said director has the power to do those things without presidential approval.  It does not make him the one ultimately responsible.

Its like a manager assigning his employee a task that he, the manager, was told to do.  If the employee doesn't do it, it is ultimately the manager who is responsible.

No where does it say that the responsibility is shifted from the president but rather the power to do that job is given to a designated person.
Wrong.

It does specifically state the responsibility falls on the Director of OMB as the designate

Once you occupy the office that has been designated to carry out specific responsibilities then you are responsible, no one else.

These Executive Directives specifically designates the Director of OMB to act on the requirements of filing any reports.

Further, the acts taken by the Director of the OMB as it relates to filing reports to Congress specifically:"...without ratification or other action of the President."

In other words, no more responsibility rests with the President in regard to filing reports.

Look, Congress wrote this act.

Nixon wrote an Executive Directive concerning this act.

Reagan wrote an Executive Directive amending Nixon's Executive Directive concerning this act.

The Executive Directives concerning this act are known by Congress and they were codified into the act.

So your analogy of the manager is way off base, in that Congress assigned the task for reporting to the President. Nixon wrote an Executive Directive passing off the full responsibilities (i.e., designate and empower to act) in regard to reporting. Congress was fully aware of this taking place and if they had a problem with it then, they could have said so.

But they didn't.

You are so far off base here...you really have no base from which to argue or even make a claim I suck at law.

I mean, you do know the meaning of the word, "designate," as it relates to authority to act, right?

« Last Edit: January 24, 2020, 06:57:57 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5221
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4783 on: January 24, 2020, 07:32:43 PM »
Ok, couple of things.

1. The issue is not about reports not being filed.  Though how you file a report when your boss tells you to freeze the funds without explanation is definitely a challenge.

2. The issue is that the funds were frozen BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT!  Seriously, if Trump has nothing to do with it, why were the funds frozen?  What, did the Director of the OMB decide to just do it because he could?  No.  He was ordered to.  By his boss.  Who was ordered to by Trump himself.

Do you deny these facts?  Or are you gonna keep confusing Obama's law breaking with Trump's?

Re: Trump
« Reply #4784 on: January 25, 2020, 12:22:17 PM »
Ok, couple of things.

1. The issue is not about reports not being filed.  Though how you file a report when your boss tells you to freeze the funds without explanation is definitely a challenge.

2. The issue is that the funds were frozen BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT!  Seriously, if Trump has nothing to do with it, why were the funds frozen?  What, did the Director of the OMB decide to just do it because he could?  No.  He was ordered to.  By his boss.  Who was ordered to by Trump himself.

Do you deny these facts?  Or are you gonna keep confusing Obama's law breaking with Trump's?
1. Of course it is!

You even tried to argue that point.

And you lost that argument.

So you admit that Trump didn't break the law, or you are now claiming that Trump broke another portion of the Impoundment Control Act.

Please designate which portion he broke.

Because I have clearly demonstrated he didn't break the filing of reports portion.

2. Has anyone, including me, claimed Trump had nothing to do with freezing the aid to Ukraine?

If you are trying to claim that placing a hold on foreign aid is against the law...I have news for you.

The president has the authority to freeze foreign aid.

And he froze the foreign aid because he wanted the Ukrainian President to investigate the Bidens and Burisma.

And there is nothing illegal about that.

The idea that a president cannot ask a foreign dignitary to cause an investigation to take place in his own country over possible corruption is high comedy of the greatest sort!

The idea that a president cannot ask for an investigation to be conducted into possible corruption involving a US citizen, simply because that US citizen has declared himself to be candidate for president is high comedy of the greatest sort!

I think if you conducted a poll of US citizens, they want the candidates to be fully vetted.

Investigations are part of the vetting process.

So, once again, back to square one...

What law did Trump break and why do the 2 articles of impeachment brought before the US Senate contain no language indicating a law, any law, was broken?

Thank you.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2020, 01:26:12 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5221
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4785 on: January 25, 2020, 04:12:43 PM »
You asserted the report section was violated, not I. 

Also:  still waiting for why TRUMP DID NOT INVESTIGATE BIDEN FIRST!!!!!!!!!

If this is such a fucking crime, where is the law Biden Broke?   Where is the investigation into his conduct from Trump's own justice department?

Re: Trump
« Reply #4786 on: January 25, 2020, 06:38:28 PM »
You asserted the report section was violated, not I. 

Also:  still waiting for why TRUMP DID NOT INVESTIGATE BIDEN FIRST!!!!!!!!!

If this is such a fucking crime, where is the law Biden Broke?   Where is the investigation into his conduct from Trump's own justice department?
Actually, junker offered up the Impoundment Control Act, stating Trump violated that law, in response to my query concerning what law Trump violated. I read the Act offered and the exploration I performed revealed (at least to me) the only section of the Act that could be in question would be that of reporting.

Naturally, I stated Trump did not violate even that section.

Of course, you took issue with my analysis, boldly proclaiming I suck at law, stating the section I presented does not remove responsibility for reporting from the president.

I replied, clearly pointing out it does.

So, I never asserted Trump violated the law.

He has not violated any law.

As far as the rest of your post...

Trump is asking for an investigation into Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

He doesn't need the US DOJ to conduct this investigation, but he did ask Zelensky to contact AG Bill Barr.

We don't know what laws the Bidens have broke yet.

But I betcha a dollar to a donut we are gonna find out...

LOL!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6622
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4787 on: January 30, 2020, 05:04:25 AM »
Did you see Pam Bondi's presentation on the Bidens?

« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 05:25:42 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is"
— Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5221
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4788 on: January 30, 2020, 06:57:45 AM »
You asserted the report section was violated, not I. 

Also:  still waiting for why TRUMP DID NOT INVESTIGATE BIDEN FIRST!!!!!!!!!

If this is such a fucking crime, where is the law Biden Broke?   Where is the investigation into his conduct from Trump's own justice department?
Actually, junker offered up the Impoundment Control Act, stating Trump violated that law, in response to my query concerning what law Trump violated. I read the Act offered and the exploration I performed revealed (at least to me) the only section of the Act that could be in question would be that of reporting.

Naturally, I stated Trump did not violate even that section.

Of course, you took issue with my analysis, boldly proclaiming I suck at law, stating the section I presented does not remove responsibility for reporting from the president.

I replied, clearly pointing out it does.

So, I never asserted Trump violated the law.

He has not violated any law.

As far as the rest of your post...

Trump is asking for an investigation into Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

He doesn't need the US DOJ to conduct this investigation, but he did ask Zelensky to contact AG Bill Barr.

We don't know what laws the Bidens have broke yet.

But I betcha a dollar to a donut we are gonna find out...

LOL!


Quote
(b) Consistency with legislative policy
Deferrals shall be permissible only—

(1) to provide for contingencies;

(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or

(3) as specifically provided by law.


No officer or employee of the United States may defer any budget authority for any other purpose.

He (or his administration) failed to report the defferrment to congress in the required time.

Now your argument being that Trump has no requirement to do so means he doesn't have responsibility means either
1.  The OBM has the power and Trump does not so the OBM deferred payment at their discression and not under orders from Trump.

2. Trump does have the power to order the OBM to deferr payments and thus the OBM is operating under the orders of President Trump, which makes President Trump ultimately responsible for the action.  (I was just following orders) and all that.




Did you see Pam Bondi's presentation on the Bidens?

I heard some about it but what I heard boils down to: Hunter is a bad person for taking the job and that's why Trump wanted to investigate Joe Biden.  It's a good case for why Hunter got the job and clearly alot of research was done on the American side.  YET... Trump has not investigated Joe Biden's conduct himself(from his own justice department), nor is Trump suggesting that Hunter taking the job was bad or corruption.  Which is frankly odd, really.  I mean, you'd think Trump, of all people, would see the problem with using political power to give relatives jobs in powerful locations.

But again: its the same Reason Hillary isn't in Jail.  No crime was comitted.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4789 on: January 30, 2020, 11:30:44 AM »
You asserted the report section was violated, not I. 

Also:  still waiting for why TRUMP DID NOT INVESTIGATE BIDEN FIRST!!!!!!!!!

If this is such a fucking crime, where is the law Biden Broke?   Where is the investigation into his conduct from Trump's own justice department?
Actually, junker offered up the Impoundment Control Act, stating Trump violated that law, in response to my query concerning what law Trump violated. I read the Act offered and the exploration I performed revealed (at least to me) the only section of the Act that could be in question would be that of reporting.

Naturally, I stated Trump did not violate even that section.

Of course, you took issue with my analysis, boldly proclaiming I suck at law, stating the section I presented does not remove responsibility for reporting from the president.

I replied, clearly pointing out it does.

So, I never asserted Trump violated the law.

He has not violated any law.

As far as the rest of your post...

Trump is asking for an investigation into Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

He doesn't need the US DOJ to conduct this investigation, but he did ask Zelensky to contact AG Bill Barr.

We don't know what laws the Bidens have broke yet.

But I betcha a dollar to a donut we are gonna find out...

LOL!


Quote
(b) Consistency with legislative policy
Deferrals shall be permissible only—

(1) to provide for contingencies;

(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or

(3) as specifically provided by law.


No officer or employee of the United States may defer any budget authority for any other purpose.

He (or his administration) failed to report the defferrment to congress in the required time.

Now your argument being that Trump has no requirement to do so means he doesn't have responsibility means either
1.  The OBM has the power and Trump does not so the OBM deferred payment at their discression and not under orders from Trump.

2. Trump does have the power to order the OBM to deferr payments and thus the OBM is operating under the orders of President Trump, which makes President Trump ultimately responsible for the action.  (I was just following orders) and all that.
Wow.

So much written nonsense.

Trump has the authority to defer, recess, withhold any foreign aid he deems fit.

The Executive Directives mentioned and codified in the law specifically delineate who has the authority and the responsibility to report such actions.

Your argument is totally ridiculous...but let's just assume you are right.

I urge you to write the House Impeachment Managers forthwith, without haste, and notify them of this earth shattering news you put forth here!

Let us all know in a follow up post of any response you get!

Re: Trump
« Reply #4790 on: January 30, 2020, 12:51:15 PM »
As an additional aside, you have gone back and forth several times about what the specific issues could possibly be with the Impoundment Control Act, even denying issues with reporting.

Here you are:
"1. The issue is not about reports not being filed."

But now, you pick that glove back up...

You are all over the place!

Nothing you have written supports any sort of violations and has been thoroughly debunked.

Don't believe me?

Write any lawyer.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 02:37:06 PM by totallackey »

Re: Trump
« Reply #4791 on: January 30, 2020, 03:25:00 PM »
Did you see Pam Bondi's presentation on the Bidens?

i quit around the 15-minute mark.  i was hoping for some actual evidence of...anything.  but apparently she's just going to spend 30 minutes saying "hunter biden was on the board at burisma."  i knew that already.

i most enjoyed hearing her open by saying that the democrats must prove that the bidens are not doing anything illegal.  priceless.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4792 on: January 30, 2020, 04:24:36 PM »
Did you see Pam Bondi's presentation on the Bidens?

i quit around the 15-minute mark.  i was hoping for some actual evidence of...anything.  but apparently she's just going to spend 30 minutes saying "hunter biden was on the board at burisma."  i knew that already.

i most enjoyed hearing her open by saying that the democrats must prove that the bidens are not doing anything illegal.  priceless.
They do if they want to prove that Trump had no reason to ask a foreign country to investigate corruption.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1565
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4793 on: January 30, 2020, 04:29:05 PM »
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/dershowitz-quid-pro-quo/index.html

An embarrassing end to a once-distinguished career.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Re: Trump
« Reply #4794 on: January 30, 2020, 04:34:04 PM »
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/dershowitz-quid-pro-quo/index.html

An embarrassing end to a once-distinguished career.
No fan of Dershowitz...he will probably go down as a result of Epstein...

But, everything he said is true.

People run for president because of many reasons, one of them being they would be the best thing for the country since sliced bread (i.e., it is best for the national interest).

So, Dershowitz is is right, despite the nuh-uher's...

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6622
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4795 on: January 30, 2020, 05:39:00 PM »
Prosecutor Shokin has filed a criminal complaint against Joe Biden for interference in Ukraine’s legal proceedings against the Burisma company.

https://www.les-crises.fr/breaking-news-prosecutor-shokin-files-a-complaint-against-joe-biden-for-interference-in-ukraine-s-legal-proceedings/

Womp womp
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is"
— Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5221
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4796 on: January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM »
Wow.

So much written nonsense.

Trump has the authority to defer, recess, withhold any foreign aid he deems fit.
Please quote the law and or document that gives him that right?  The law I posted very clearly does NOT give him the right to defer, recess, or withhold foreign aid as he deems fit.  In fact, the CONSTITUTION gives Congress the power of the Purse, not the President. 

Quote
The Executive Directives mentioned and codified in the law specifically delineate who has the authority and the responsibility to report such actions.
Sure.  It gives the OMB the power to report any deferrment requests as well as reasons and facts as to why.  Again, why did they not do it?  WAs it because Trump ordered it? 

Quote
Your argument is totally ridiculous...but let's just assume you are right.

I urge you to write the House Impeachment Managers forthwith, without haste, and notify them of this earth shattering news you put forth here!
They already know, genius.  Where do you think we got the law from? 


As an additional aside, you have gone back and forth several times about what the specific issues could possibly be with the Impoundment Control Act, even denying issues with reporting.

Here you are:
"1. The issue is not about reports not being filed."

But now, you pick that glove back up...

You are all over the place!

Nothing you have written supports any sort of violations and has been thoroughly debunked.

Don't believe me?

Write any lawyer.
I'm honestly just responding to you.  YOU started with the report bit.  I never mentioned it.  Junker, in fact, pointed out the law before I could. 

And while I do know several Lawyers, I am not wasting their time by trying to win an argument with some cocky corrections employee who wrote a few rules and thinks he's a lawyer.  Bet you have your constitutional law degree just lying around but you won't show it, huh? 

Anyway, I am still waiting for you to explain Section 684(b) and why that is not valid in this case.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1565
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4797 on: January 30, 2020, 09:08:48 PM »
Prosecutor Shokin has filed a criminal complaint against Joe Biden for interference in Ukraine’s legal proceedings against the Burisma company.

https://www.les-crises.fr/breaking-news-prosecutor-shokin-files-a-complaint-against-joe-biden-for-interference-in-ukraine-s-legal-proceedings/

Womp womp

He's not a prosecutor anymore and this isn't any kind of official government action. It's just a private citizen asking for an investigation into Biden.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/dershowitz-quid-pro-quo/index.html

An embarrassing end to a once-distinguished career.
No fan of Dershowitz...he will probably go down as a result of Epstein...

But, everything he said is true.

People run for president because of many reasons, one of them being they would be the best thing for the country since sliced bread (i.e., it is best for the national interest).

So, Dershowitz is is right, despite the nuh-uher's...

I don't see the logic behind his argument. Yes, politicians generally believe that their election is in the public interest. It does not follow that any action meant to help their election is therefore legally justified. Why would it?
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Re: Trump
« Reply #4798 on: January 31, 2020, 11:53:23 AM »
Wow.

So much written nonsense.

Trump has the authority to defer, recess, withhold any foreign aid he deems fit.
Please quote the law and or document that gives him that right?  The law I posted very clearly does NOT give him the right to defer, recess, or withhold foreign aid as he deems fit.  In fact, the CONSTITUTION gives Congress the power of the Purse, not the President.
One, the Impoundment Control Act actually deals with the requirements of reporting when the President makes a decision to withhold foreign aid. If the President cannot make such a decision, as you are claiming, then why write an act requiring reports to Congress when he does?

But, just to sugar your crow:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title22/html/USCODE-2010-title22-chap32-subchapIII-partI-sec2370.htm

And the phrase, "deems fit," means to meet the standards justifying such delay or withholding.

Not willy-nilly.
Quote
The Executive Directives mentioned and codified in the law specifically delineate who has the authority and the responsibility to report such actions.
Sure.  It gives the OMB the power to report any deferrment requests as well as reasons and facts as to why.  Again, why did they not do it?  WAs it because Trump ordered it?
The OMB did file the required reports.

Get your facts straight.
Quote
Your argument is totally ridiculous...but let's just assume you are right.

I urge you to write the House Impeachment Managers forthwith, without haste, and notify them of this earth shattering news you put forth here!
They already know, genius.  Where do you think we got the law from?
What law?

The House managers didn't name any law that was broken, including the Impoundment Control Act.

Breaking the law constitutes a crime. 

The House didn't incorporate a specific law that was broken because...wait for it...

No law was broken.
As an additional aside, you have gone back and forth several times about what the specific issues could possibly be with the Impoundment Control Act, even denying issues with reporting.

Here you are:
"1. The issue is not about reports not being filed."

But now, you pick that glove back up...

You are all over the place!

Nothing you have written supports any sort of violations and has been thoroughly debunked.

Don't believe me?

Write any lawyer.
I'm honestly just responding to you.  YOU started with the report bit.  I never mentioned it.  Junker, in fact, pointed out the law before I could. 

And while I do know several Lawyers, I am not wasting their time by trying to win an argument with some cocky corrections employee who wrote a few rules and thinks he's a lawyer.  Bet you have your constitutional law degree just lying around but you won't show it, huh? 

Anyway, I am still waiting for you to explain Section 684(b) and why that is not valid in this case.
The Executive Directives I already pointed to are now legally incorporated and codified into the Impoundment Control Act.

If you read them, they specifically address Section 684(b) and reporting requirements.

Really, talk to your lawyer friends.

ETA:

Finally, everyone here must consider this.

The President of the United States has the sole power under the US Constitution to decide whether or not the United States actually recognizes the existence of any country.

Essentially, this mean the US House can vote to provide foreign aid to any country, and the President, after a certain period of time, decides, "Nah, the country as we once knew it, actually exists no longer."

That's all fact.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 01:02:47 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5221
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4799 on: January 31, 2020, 11:18:23 PM »
Wow.

So much written nonsense.

Trump has the authority to defer, recess, withhold any foreign aid he deems fit.
Please quote the law and or document that gives him that right?  The law I posted very clearly does NOT give him the right to defer, recess, or withhold foreign aid as he deems fit.  In fact, the CONSTITUTION gives Congress the power of the Purse, not the President.
One, the Impoundment Control Act actually deals with the requirements of reporting when the President makes a decision to withhold foreign aid.
Half right.  It is the rules stating how to proceed when a president determiens that money allocated by congress is not needed for the project it's set for.  It is quite clear that the President does not have the authority to canel the items outright or delay them as he see's fit but rather must make the request to do so to Congress and the law outlines how to do that.  You HAVE read it, yes?

Quote
If the President cannot make such a decision, as you are claiming, then why write an act requiring reports to Congress when he does?
Deciding to do something and being allowed to do it are not the same thing.  Example:
You will be perminately banned from both forums.  I have decided.

I do not have the power to actually do it though.  But I have decided!  The act, quite simply, is the procedure on what to do after the president makes the decision (and there are restrictions on the reasons).  He can't actually block or deallocate the money himself, but he can petition congress to do so.  Which is what the law says.

Quote
But, just to sugar your crow:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title22/html/USCODE-2010-title22-chap32-subchapIII-partI-sec2370.htm

And the phrase, "deems fit," means to meet the standards justifying such delay or withholding.

Not willy-nilly.
You know, I did a search for Deem, Deems, and fit and could not find that phrase at all.  Be a dear and actually quote the area it's in?  Because most of what that reads is restrictions on foreign aid to communist nations.

Quote
Quote
The Executive Directives mentioned and codified in the law specifically delineate who has the authority and the responsibility to report such actions.
Sure.  It gives the OMB the power to report any deferrment requests as well as reasons and facts as to why.  Again, why did they not do it?  WAs it because Trump ordered it?
The OMB did file the required reports.

Get your facts straight.
Did they?  With all the relevant facts? 
 
Quote
Quote
Your argument is totally ridiculous...but let's just assume you are right.

I urge you to write the House Impeachment Managers forthwith, without haste, and notify them of this earth shattering news you put forth here!
They already know, genius.  Where do you think we got the law from?
What law?

The House managers didn't name any law that was broken, including the Impoundment Control Act.

Breaking the law constitutes a crime. 

The House didn't incorporate a specific law that was broken because...wait for it...

No law was broken.
The GAO did.
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796800125/read-the-report-to-congress-about-how-trump-broke-budget-law-on-ukraine

Quote
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-344, title X, § 1015, 88 Stat. 297, 336 (July 12, 1974), codified at 2 U.S.C. § 686. As explained below, we conclude that OMB withheld the funds from obligation for an unauthorized reason in violation of the ICA. 1 See 2 U.S.C. § 684.

Again, for your reading because you can't seem to read.  These are the valid reasons for deferring payments:
(1) to provide for contingencies;
(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or
(3) as specifically provided by law.

The reason he gave was re-evaluating policy.  Which is not a valid reason according to the law.  So not only did he do what he wasn't allowed to do, but he did it for a reason he wasn't allowed to do it for.

Quote
As an additional aside, you have gone back and forth several times about what the specific issues could possibly be with the Impoundment Control Act, even denying issues with reporting.

Here you are:
"1. The issue is not about reports not being filed."

But now, you pick that glove back up...

You are all over the place!

Nothing you have written supports any sort of violations and has been thoroughly debunked.

Don't believe me?

Write any lawyer.
I'm honestly just responding to you.  YOU started with the report bit.  I never mentioned it.  Junker, in fact, pointed out the law before I could. 

And while I do know several Lawyers, I am not wasting their time by trying to win an argument with some cocky corrections employee who wrote a few rules and thinks he's a lawyer.  Bet you have your constitutional law degree just lying around but you won't show it, huh? 

Anyway, I am still waiting for you to explain Section 684(b) and why that is not valid in this case.
The Executive Directives I already pointed to are now legally incorporated and codified into the Impoundment Control Act.

If you read them, they specifically address Section 684(b) and reporting requirements.

Really, talk to your lawyer friends.

ETA:

Finally, everyone here must consider this.

The President of the United States has the sole power under the US Constitution to decide whether or not the United States actually recognizes the existence of any country.

Essentially, this mean the US House can vote to provide foreign aid to any country, and the President, after a certain period of time, decides, "Nah, the country as we once knew it, actually exists no longer."

That's all fact.
Oh, has Trump decided to not acknolwledge the existence of Ukraine?  That's news to me.