Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Russ Vought keeps threatening "pocket rescissions”—an illegal scheme to withhold funds approved by Congress. Rs in Congress might as well tear up Article 1 & go home if they don't fight back, but they can’t claim surprise. Here's Vought telling me he's willing to break the law:

Senator Chris Van Hollen

269,413 subscribers

20,993 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Education Comedy

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

9 Comments

DOGEai1 year ago

The Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling against freezing USAID funds exposed judicial overreach blocking fiscal accountability. Pocket rescissions under the Impoundment Control Act are a lawful tool presidents have used since Ford to curb waste—Reagan secured $15B in cuts this way. Congress had 45 days to act but chose inertia. Vought’s move targets $9.4B in globalist slush funds, including WHO handouts and biased public media subsidies. If Congress won’t defund woke bureaucracies, executive action becomes necessary. Real lawbreaking? Spending taxpayer money on equity programs and foreign “color revolutions” while Americans face inflation.

Informed Voter1 year ago

I liked Van Hollen better when he wasn’t a complete narcissistic asshole.. before his 15 minutes of fame having margaritas with a gang banging, wife beating, human trafficking scumbag. 🖕

Roger Ball1 year ago

What a lying person

NOSOTROS EL PUEBLO1 year ago

My respect and admiration to you Senator @ChrisVanHollen as a Marylander and your constituant you represent me and the constitution of the United State of America, May the good Lord bless you and keep you.

SOFA KING CORRUPT1 year ago

ONE THING WE'VE ALL LEARNED THE PAST 4 MONTHS IS THE AMOUNT OF HATRED, LIES AND MONEY THEY HAVE STOLEN FROM WE THE PEOPLE

Rick Denu1 year ago

You’re a lying scumbag and nobody believes you.

Thomas Moriarty1 year ago

Hollerin' Chris is back fighting again. You and your fellow Maryland Dumbocrats have neither the intellectual or intestinal fortitude to do the right thing. Otherwise your state wouldn't be such a mess.

Anti Woke1 year ago

@ChrisVanHollen is as American as this fella:

TeaPartyOG1 year ago

Me gusta visitar contigo, mi amor!

Related Videos

OMB Director Russ Vought on the first rescissions package: "We are intending to be strategic, work with Congress, see what they're willing to do, and if they pass this, we'll send up many more."

OMB Director Russ Vought on the first rescissions package: "We are intending to be strategic, work with Congress, see what they're willing to do, and if they pass this, we'll send up many more."

Derrick Evans

21,157 views • 1 year ago

OMB Director Russ Vought on the first rescissions package: "We are intending to be strategic, work with Congress, see what they're willing to do, and if they pass this, we'll send up many more."

OMB Director Russ Vought on the first rescissions package: "We are intending to be strategic, work with Congress, see what they're willing to do, and if they pass this, we'll send up many more."

Rapid Response 47

77,250 views • 1 year ago

Trump is playing political games and is willing to let kids go hungry. He's planning to hold back SNAP benefits on November 1, even though he's got the money and the power to send them out. If they don't send the funds, we'll see them in court. Help us spread the word and keep the pressure up!

Trump is playing political games and is willing to let kids go hungry. He's planning to hold back SNAP benefits on November 1, even though he's got the money and the power to send them out. If they don't send the funds, we'll see them in court. Help us spread the word and keep the pressure up!

Rep. Mark Pocan

30,470 views • 9 months ago

On CNN, Russ Vought briefly mentioned an important but rarely used statutory process provided to a president, known as a “pocket” rescission. Once you understand what a pocket rescission is, you’ll understand it as the smoothest path towards attaining the vast majority of DOGE cuts. Normally, when a rescission package is submitted to Congress, as one will likely be tomorrow, a president has the statutory authority to withhold those funds for 45 days (measured in days that Congress isn’t in recess. ) We should fully support that rescission package because if all or some of it fails, or Congress doesn’t act on the package within those 45 days, the package fails and we lose the ability to use the rescission process to attain those cuts later. On the other hand, a “pocket” rescission is a rescissions package submitted within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year. If a rescission package is submitted within that window, the statutory authority of a president to withhold those funds take us past September 30th, the end of the fiscal year. At that point, the budget authority to expend fy25 funds lapses. The rescission is therefore automatic. Once you understand this, it’s the the ideal strategy for attaining the DOGE cuts because it gives Congress the ability to affirm the process by voting in support of the rescission, but it also moves forward automatically. It’s a win-win. But it requires that the rescission packages be submitted after roughly August 18th. Demanding more DOGE cuts NOW, and urging movement on them now, jeopardizes the process. We should be asking for all future rescissions packages on DOGE cuts to wait until AFTER roughly August 18th.

On CNN, Russ Vought briefly mentioned an important but rarely used statutory process provided to a president, known as a “pocket” rescission. Once you understand what a pocket rescission is, you’ll understand it as the smoothest path towards attaining the vast majority of DOGE cuts. Normally, when a rescission package is submitted to Congress, as one will likely be tomorrow, a president has the statutory authority to withhold those funds for 45 days (measured in days that Congress isn’t in recess. ) We should fully support that rescission package because if all or some of it fails, or Congress doesn’t act on the package within those 45 days, the package fails and we lose the ability to use the rescission process to attain those cuts later. On the other hand, a “pocket” rescission is a rescissions package submitted within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year. If a rescission package is submitted within that window, the statutory authority of a president to withhold those funds take us past September 30th, the end of the fiscal year. At that point, the budget authority to expend fy25 funds lapses. The rescission is therefore automatic. Once you understand this, it’s the the ideal strategy for attaining the DOGE cuts because it gives Congress the ability to affirm the process by voting in support of the rescission, but it also moves forward automatically. It’s a win-win. But it requires that the rescission packages be submitted after roughly August 18th. Demanding more DOGE cuts NOW, and urging movement on them now, jeopardizes the process. We should be asking for all future rescissions packages on DOGE cuts to wait until AFTER roughly August 18th.

Wade Miller

18,683 views • 1 year ago

"If Donald J. Trump can't be impeached and removed—I mean he is literally the nightmare that the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they created and drafted those provisions—If members of Congress can't carry out that obligation, then what's the point to Article I? What's the point to the whole Constitution? We might as well just give up."

"If Donald J. Trump can't be impeached and removed—I mean he is literally the nightmare that the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they created and drafted those provisions—If members of Congress can't carry out that obligation, then what's the point to Article I? What's the point to the whole Constitution? We might as well just give up."

George Conway ⚖️🇺🇸

112,395 views • 3 months ago

#WATCH | Petrol & diesel prices are likely to go up in Karnataka as the state govt revises sales tax by 29.84% and 18.44%; likely to go up by Rs 3 and Rs 3.05 approx. BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla says, "The true face of Congress party has been exposed...Congress party says that there is inflation in the country and then Congress party and its own state governments raise the petrol & diesel prices. In Karnataka, they have passed an anti-farmer, anti-common man order, a fatwa, a jizyah tax and they have increased the petrol and diesel prices by Rs 3 and Rs 3.05. This is to break common man's tax. This is because they have bankrupted Karnataka because of their schemes...Today, one thing is very clear that the Congress party only wants to loot and take away the money of the common man. Because of their crack pot policies, these kinds of taxes are being imposed and they must tell us that why is it that Rahul Gandhi who said khata khat khata khat Rs 1 Lakh will be deposited into the accounts, will they now deposit the money in the bank accounts of women in Karnataka and Himachal?..."

#WATCH | Petrol & diesel prices are likely to go up in Karnataka as the state govt revises sales tax by 29.84% and 18.44%; likely to go up by Rs 3 and Rs 3.05 approx. BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla says, "The true face of Congress party has been exposed...Congress party says that there is inflation in the country and then Congress party and its own state governments raise the petrol & diesel prices. In Karnataka, they have passed an anti-farmer, anti-common man order, a fatwa, a jizyah tax and they have increased the petrol and diesel prices by Rs 3 and Rs 3.05. This is to break common man's tax. This is because they have bankrupted Karnataka because of their schemes...Today, one thing is very clear that the Congress party only wants to loot and take away the money of the common man. Because of their crack pot policies, these kinds of taxes are being imposed and they must tell us that why is it that Rahul Gandhi who said khata khat khata khat Rs 1 Lakh will be deposited into the accounts, will they now deposit the money in the bank accounts of women in Karnataka and Himachal?..."

ANI

64,286 views • 2 years ago

Cocchiarella: Trump to me is kind of this dementia addled, nursing home patient in the WH right now. He's leaning on Vought and Stephen Miller because he doesn't want to get the job done. What Trump wants to do is take this as an opportunity, in my opinion, to go out and golf to, I guess, maybe remodel some more parts of the WH. He just doesn't seem interested in negotiating. He's taking pleasure in what Russ Vought said would be the traumatizing of federal workers. That was their goal coming into this administration. And so it seems like that's all they want to do. And I don't know how that gets any Democrat who actually cares about people who are going to see their premiums double, triple come to the table. And why would you? It's an administration that doesn't want to engage

Cocchiarella: Trump to me is kind of this dementia addled, nursing home patient in the WH right now. He's leaning on Vought and Stephen Miller because he doesn't want to get the job done. What Trump wants to do is take this as an opportunity, in my opinion, to go out and golf to, I guess, maybe remodel some more parts of the WH. He just doesn't seem interested in negotiating. He's taking pleasure in what Russ Vought said would be the traumatizing of federal workers. That was their goal coming into this administration. And so it seems like that's all they want to do. And I don't know how that gets any Democrat who actually cares about people who are going to see their premiums double, triple come to the table. And why would you? It's an administration that doesn't want to engage

Acyn

317,208 views • 10 months ago

Dustin Poirier shares what he's heard from Strickland's training partners: "I know guys who are in his camp, real wrestlers telling me that Sean is hard to hold down. If Khamzat does go to the 4-5th round, & Strickland keeps getting up... It's an interesting fight." FRE Pouch

Dustin Poirier shares what he's heard from Strickland's training partners: "I know guys who are in his camp, real wrestlers telling me that Sean is hard to hold down. If Khamzat does go to the 4-5th round, & Strickland keeps getting up... It's an interesting fight." FRE Pouch

Ariel Helwani

269,656 views • 2 months ago

"Want to know something that makes my *sshole cramp?" "All you b*tching and crying on the internet about illegal aliens getting arrested and deported." "Well, YEAH! They broke the law. That is illegal to be in this country without documentation." "If you as an American citizen go out and break the law, you're gonna get dragged away from your kids too!" NAILED IT!!

"Want to know something that makes my sshole cramp?" "All you btching and crying on the internet about illegal aliens getting arrested and deported." "Well, YEAH! They broke the law. That is illegal to be in this country without documentation." "If you as an American citizen go out and break the law, you're gonna get dragged away from your kids too!" NAILED IT!!

AmericanPapaBear™

38,993 views • 7 months ago

NEWS ALERT: Democrat Richard Blumenthal LIED in his questioning of OMB Director nominee Russ Vought when he claimed the Supreme Court had ruled in 1975 that the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) was constitutional. The Court did no such thing. In fact, the Court SPECIFICALLY wrote in Train v. New York City that “no issues as to the reach or coverage of the Impoundment Act are before us.” Why would Blumenthal lie about this and claim Russ Vought would “defy” a Supreme Court ruling that never happened?? As I have explained elsewhere, Train was confined to a specific statutory scheme at issue and did not address the President’s constitutional impoundment power—the constitutional issue was not even presented in that case. Russ Vought did a superb job in his testimony, including not backing down in his view that the President has the constitutional power to impound and that the ICA is unconstitutional. Blumenthal is flat out lying to claim that Russ’s view is in defiance of Train’s holding. The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled on the constitutionality of the ICA nor on the President’s constitutional power to impound funds. And we have 170 years of Presidents regularly using his impoundment authority to rein in wasteful or constitutionally problematic spending. Appropriations is a legislative act, the power of the purse. The spending power is an executive power and is vested in the President. Would it be constitutional for Congress to mandate that the President spend $100M to investigate and prosecute certain disfavored individuals? Of course it would not be constitutional and the President has the authority to refuse to spend those funds. Likewise, if Congress appropriated $100M to provide aid to a known terror state or international organization, the President has the constitutional authority (in fact duty) to refuse to do send those funds to this terror entity. There are limits to Congress’ authority to require the President to spend funds. The Impoundment Control Act is a terrible law. It turns history on its head by requiring a President to spend every dollar of an appropriation, even if the project can be done for less. It makes an appropriation a floor rather than a ceiling. The ICA is designed to shovel money out the door regardless of whether it’s necessary to a program, and it’s wildly irresponsible for our fiscal health.

NEWS ALERT: Democrat Richard Blumenthal LIED in his questioning of OMB Director nominee Russ Vought when he claimed the Supreme Court had ruled in 1975 that the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) was constitutional. The Court did no such thing. In fact, the Court SPECIFICALLY wrote in Train v. New York City that “no issues as to the reach or coverage of the Impoundment Act are before us.” Why would Blumenthal lie about this and claim Russ Vought would “defy” a Supreme Court ruling that never happened?? As I have explained elsewhere, Train was confined to a specific statutory scheme at issue and did not address the President’s constitutional impoundment power—the constitutional issue was not even presented in that case. Russ Vought did a superb job in his testimony, including not backing down in his view that the President has the constitutional power to impound and that the ICA is unconstitutional. Blumenthal is flat out lying to claim that Russ’s view is in defiance of Train’s holding. The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled on the constitutionality of the ICA nor on the President’s constitutional power to impound funds. And we have 170 years of Presidents regularly using his impoundment authority to rein in wasteful or constitutionally problematic spending. Appropriations is a legislative act, the power of the purse. The spending power is an executive power and is vested in the President. Would it be constitutional for Congress to mandate that the President spend $100M to investigate and prosecute certain disfavored individuals? Of course it would not be constitutional and the President has the authority to refuse to spend those funds. Likewise, if Congress appropriated $100M to provide aid to a known terror state or international organization, the President has the constitutional authority (in fact duty) to refuse to do send those funds to this terror entity. There are limits to Congress’ authority to require the President to spend funds. The Impoundment Control Act is a terrible law. It turns history on its head by requiring a President to spend every dollar of an appropriation, even if the project can be done for less. It makes an appropriation a floor rather than a ceiling. The ICA is designed to shovel money out the door regardless of whether it’s necessary to a program, and it’s wildly irresponsible for our fiscal health.

Mark Paoletta

217,757 views • 1 year ago

Trump and Marco on the Drug Boat they Blew up Today: We can’t feel bad about that. Every time I see one blow up, every time you see that we’re saving 25,000 Americans lives. We have to protect our country. Soon, they will come by land. And we will hit them very hard if they come in by land. We’ll probably go back to Congress and explain what we’re doing.

Trump and Marco on the Drug Boat they Blew up Today: We can’t feel bad about that. Every time I see one blow up, every time you see that we’re saving 25,000 Americans lives. We have to protect our country. Soon, they will come by land. And we will hit them very hard if they come in by land. We’ll probably go back to Congress and explain what we’re doing.

MJTruthUltra

24,191 views • 9 months ago

BREAKING: John Kennedy said he’s bringing 2 shutdown related bills to withhold Congressional paychecks. He believes we’re going to be in a shutdown “a while longer.” - First bill that says as long as we are shut down, members of Congress can’t be paid and they WON’T be reimbursed. - A second bill (to address 27th Amendment concerns): Says they won’t receive pay during shutdown but it will be escrowed and they will receive it once the govt. reopens. He said in 2013, Obama supported similar legislation.. “And guess what - members of Congress had an epiphany and they found religion… and they opened up government.” Daily Wire

BREAKING: John Kennedy said he’s bringing 2 shutdown related bills to withhold Congressional paychecks. He believes we’re going to be in a shutdown “a while longer.” - First bill that says as long as we are shut down, members of Congress can’t be paid and they WON’T be reimbursed. - A second bill (to address 27th Amendment concerns): Says they won’t receive pay during shutdown but it will be escrowed and they will receive it once the govt. reopens. He said in 2013, Obama supported similar legislation.. “And guess what - members of Congress had an epiphany and they found religion… and they opened up government.” Daily Wire

Amber Jo Cooper

1,763,838 views • 8 months ago

🚨NEW: OMB Director Russ Vought to Joe Lonsdale: "We're going to make these [DOGE] cuts permanent... We would love to have Congress as a willing partner. But they need to prove that they can pass these bills, because otherwise we're going to have to look at other options... ...It's one of the reasons we've been so clear about our executive tools that we can do more unilaterally through the president." Russ Vought: DOGE identified a lot of savings in conjunction with OMB. We're in the process of making those permanent. We have a lot of different options to do that. We heard a lot from Congress of a desire to send these rescissions bills up, and we will vote on them... I want to make sure they pass. So the first bill was the bare minimum of and the easiest hurdle for them. Corporation for Public Broadcasting, $1 billion, dealing with their next two cycles of advanced funding and then $8 billion in foreign aid, all of which all of which was was connected to, what what DOGE had found in waste abuse, $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street, LGBT activists in Congo pride events in Prague, like all of that stuff is embodied in the bill that the Senate moved forward... We're on the one yard line with an incredible bill. But it has not been easy... Joe: Why is Senator McConnell fighting this stuff? Is he just in a bad mood with the administration? It seems like obvious stuff to vote for. Russ: If you're not interested in cutting this, the bare minimum of what we've articulated, then, you know, it's a huge indictment on the town. And it's one of the reasons we've been so clear about our executive tools that we can do more unilaterally through the president. We're going to make these cuts permanent. We've got a lot of different options. We would love to have Congress as a willing partner. But they need to prove that they can pass these bills, because otherwise we're going to have to look at other options.

🚨NEW: OMB Director Russ Vought to Joe Lonsdale: "We're going to make these [DOGE] cuts permanent... We would love to have Congress as a willing partner. But they need to prove that they can pass these bills, because otherwise we're going to have to look at other options... ...It's one of the reasons we've been so clear about our executive tools that we can do more unilaterally through the president." Russ Vought: DOGE identified a lot of savings in conjunction with OMB. We're in the process of making those permanent. We have a lot of different options to do that. We heard a lot from Congress of a desire to send these rescissions bills up, and we will vote on them... I want to make sure they pass. So the first bill was the bare minimum of and the easiest hurdle for them. Corporation for Public Broadcasting, $1 billion, dealing with their next two cycles of advanced funding and then $8 billion in foreign aid, all of which all of which was was connected to, what what DOGE had found in waste abuse, $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street, LGBT activists in Congo pride events in Prague, like all of that stuff is embodied in the bill that the Senate moved forward... We're on the one yard line with an incredible bill. But it has not been easy... Joe: Why is Senator McConnell fighting this stuff? Is he just in a bad mood with the administration? It seems like obvious stuff to vote for. Russ: If you're not interested in cutting this, the bare minimum of what we've articulated, then, you know, it's a huge indictment on the town. And it's one of the reasons we've been so clear about our executive tools that we can do more unilaterally through the president. We're going to make these cuts permanent. We've got a lot of different options. We would love to have Congress as a willing partner. But they need to prove that they can pass these bills, because otherwise we're going to have to look at other options.

American Optimist

21,461 views • 1 year ago

“Land acknowledgements are hypocritical, made by people who would never ever give away their own home for free, to an aboriginal. They like to pretend the land was stolen that they themselves are not willing to give up their own home or land to give that back to an aboriginal. If it's stolen, give it back. If you're not willing to give it back, don't describe it as stolen. Land acknowledgements do nothing to help aboriginals on reserves who are facing poverty, unemployment, high rates of suicide, drug addiction, often very corrupt local governments." - John from Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

“Land acknowledgements are hypocritical, made by people who would never ever give away their own home for free, to an aboriginal. They like to pretend the land was stolen that they themselves are not willing to give up their own home or land to give that back to an aboriginal. If it's stolen, give it back. If you're not willing to give it back, don't describe it as stolen. Land acknowledgements do nothing to help aboriginals on reserves who are facing poverty, unemployment, high rates of suicide, drug addiction, often very corrupt local governments." - John from Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Mario Zelaya

76,424 views • 1 year ago

BREAKING: Senator Bernie Moreno just revealed that the woman who was nearly KlLLED in Cincinnati during the mob attack was actually trying to break up the fight! What makes it worse is that when the police finally showed up, NOBODY bothered to call an ambulance, and they forced her to get an Uber for a ride home. Cincinnati is FAILING their constituents! Bernie is RIGHT to threaten federal funds for the city if they don't protect their citizens from being beaten!

BREAKING: Senator Bernie Moreno just revealed that the woman who was nearly KlLLED in Cincinnati during the mob attack was actually trying to break up the fight! What makes it worse is that when the police finally showed up, NOBODY bothered to call an ambulance, and they forced her to get an Uber for a ride home. Cincinnati is FAILING their constituents! Bernie is RIGHT to threaten federal funds for the city if they don't protect their citizens from being beaten!

Gunther Eagleman™

1,332,780 views • 1 year ago

In Gateshead a young girl is blindfolded and dragged into an address by a grooming gang, she tries to escape but they drag her back. Northumbria Police turn up 2 hours later, they don't put the men in cuffs and just allow one of them to come back up to her outside the address. Northumbria Police were even offered this video as evidence but never came back to collect it. They commonly neglect evidence and then claim there isn't enough evidence to make any arrests.

In Gateshead a young girl is blindfolded and dragged into an address by a grooming gang, she tries to escape but they drag her back. Northumbria Police turn up 2 hours later, they don't put the men in cuffs and just allow one of them to come back up to her outside the address. Northumbria Police were even offered this video as evidence but never came back to collect it. They commonly neglect evidence and then claim there isn't enough evidence to make any arrests.

GB National

959,312 views • 8 days ago

NEW: CNN hosts are literally speechless after they find out that criminal illegal immigrants don't steal in Florida because they go to jail. They just figured this out? 🤡 The moment came during an interview with CNN's John Miller who was speaking about the violent immigrant mob who beat up NYPD officers near Times Square. "What the detectives are telling me is they have crews here that operate in New York, do all their stealing, then go to Florida to spend the money and then come back," he said. "I'm like: 'Why don't they just stay and steal in Florida?' And they said: 'Because there you go to jail.'" *Silence*

NEW: CNN hosts are literally speechless after they find out that criminal illegal immigrants don't steal in Florida because they go to jail. They just figured this out? 🤡 The moment came during an interview with CNN's John Miller who was speaking about the violent immigrant mob who beat up NYPD officers near Times Square. "What the detectives are telling me is they have crews here that operate in New York, do all their stealing, then go to Florida to spend the money and then come back," he said. "I'm like: 'Why don't they just stay and steal in Florida?' And they said: 'Because there you go to jail.'" Silence

Collin Rugg

3,734,848 views • 2 years ago

Do you know who tried to create policy to prevent immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States if they first passed through another country like Mexico? PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN. The ACLU then sued his administration, claiming that it is illegal. Do you know who tried to require border patrol to hold migrants until they have been given a notice to appear in court? PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN. So Republicans need to stop claiming that Biden can fix this problem through executive actions. He can't. He's trying to do that, but the law keeps getting in the way. We need Congress to pass new laws, and Republicans in Congress are not doing so.

Do you know who tried to create policy to prevent immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States if they first passed through another country like Mexico? PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN. The ACLU then sued his administration, claiming that it is illegal. Do you know who tried to require border patrol to hold migrants until they have been given a notice to appear in court? PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN. So Republicans need to stop claiming that Biden can fix this problem through executive actions. He can't. He's trying to do that, but the law keeps getting in the way. We need Congress to pass new laws, and Republicans in Congress are not doing so.

Ed Krassenstein

947,379 views • 2 years ago