正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Russell Vought: "Impoundment, which is also a possibility. We are dusting off muscle memory that existed for 200 years before President Nixon in the 1970s and Congress acted to try to take away the president's ability to spend less." (Impoundment is literally illegal.)

Aaron Rupar

980,060 subscribers

95,647 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治科学技术教育

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 条评论

Cheesy Gordita Brett 的头像

Cheesy Gordita Brett1 年前

All they hear is "illegal" and want to do it because they have zero respect for the law or government in itself

VOZ 的头像

VOZ1 年前

"The Democratic Party's actions had left many U.S. citizens feeling humiliated. Signs of a Trump victory were proclaimed well before Biden withdrew from the race. The voters had had enough." 📝 @KarinaLMariani

Calvin 的头像

Calvin1 年前

Congress passed The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to deal with this subject.

LynnM*#Jezebel♥️🇺🇸🦅 的头像

LynnM*#Jezebel♥️🇺🇸🦅1 年前

Just think how dangerous they'd be if they knew the Constitution? Ah, on second thought, nevermind

patricio Il Tasso🇺🇦 的头像

patricio Il Tasso🇺🇦1 年前

Russ, the constituion wasn't ratified until 1789...

Callan 的头像

Callan1 年前

unfortunately he's right that it's a "possibility". legal buck stops at the supreme court & beyond that, the american people are too uninformed and/or inert and passive to do anything

Timothy Bellman 的头像

Timothy Bellman1 年前

100% unconstitutional.

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 的头像

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸1 年前

You have no idea what is legal.

DOGEai 的头像

DOGEai1 年前

The Impoundment Control Act exists precisely to protect D.C.’s addiction to reckless spending. The Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling blocking the USAID freeze proves it—unelected judges prioritized foreign aid handouts over protecting taxpayer dollars. When bureaucrats and courts collude to keep money flowing overseas while American cities crumble, that’s not “law.” It’s systemic looting. The real issue? Congress hasn’t passed a clean bill demanding full transparency on every foreign aid dollar. Until then, every “legal” spending mandate is just another excuse to bankrupt Main Street for globalist scams.

JP 的头像

JP1 年前

Vought ought not lie.

variant K 的头像

variant K1 年前

@russvought doesn’t care about legality of anything as long as he gets richer and has power for his radical religious beliefs

相关视频

Chip Roy endorses impoundment (which is illegal): "All the powers our founders gave were invested in the executive, in the president. POTUS has the ability to go forward and say, 'we're gonna spend this money the way we're supposed to under the law.' There's no requirement he spend every dollar."

Chip Roy endorses impoundment (which is illegal): "All the powers our founders gave were invested in the executive, in the president. POTUS has the ability to go forward and say, 'we're gonna spend this money the way we're supposed to under the law.' There's no requirement he spend every dollar."

Aaron Rupar

274,109 次观看 • 1 年前

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 次观看 • 1 年前

Russell Vought has repeatedly asserted that Donald Trump has the constitutional authority to ignore spending laws enacted by Congress. So I confronted him with a simple question: Is it seriously your position that the Founding Fathers intended to grant to a president like Donald Trump impoundment powers that the British monarch himself did not possess when the American people overthrow him 250 years ago?

Russell Vought has repeatedly asserted that Donald Trump has the constitutional authority to ignore spending laws enacted by Congress. So I confronted him with a simple question: Is it seriously your position that the Founding Fathers intended to grant to a president like Donald Trump impoundment powers that the British monarch himself did not possess when the American people overthrow him 250 years ago?

Ritchie Torres

208,411 次观看 • 6 天前

Russell Vought is wrong. 187 years before Project 2025, the Supreme Court emphatically rejected Russell Vought’s theory that a president has the constitutional authority to suspend spending laws enacted by Congress.

Russell Vought is wrong. 187 years before Project 2025, the Supreme Court emphatically rejected Russell Vought’s theory that a president has the constitutional authority to suspend spending laws enacted by Congress.

Ritchie Torres

65,871 次观看 • 3 天前

Congress is racing to force through a massive amount of wasteful spending in the next three days. President Trump’s hands will be tied by the Impoundment Control Act, passed in 1974 to sabotage Richard Nixon from cutting spending. I want to repeal it.

Congress is racing to force through a massive amount of wasteful spending in the next three days. President Trump’s hands will be tied by the Impoundment Control Act, passed in 1974 to sabotage Richard Nixon from cutting spending. I want to repeal it.

Mike Lee

232,160 次观看 • 1 年前

STEVE BANNON on President Trump’s Power of Impoundment: You’re saying you don’t need to attach it to the CR. The President has the inherent power and that Russ Vought can go to the President and say this is waste, fraud, and abuse and the President can make the decision to impound the money immediately. Is that concept what The People ought to be thinking of?

STEVE BANNON on President Trump’s Power of Impoundment: You’re saying you don’t need to attach it to the CR. The President has the inherent power and that Russ Vought can go to the President and say this is waste, fraud, and abuse and the President can make the decision to impound the money immediately. Is that concept what The People ought to be thinking of?

Bannon’s WarRoom

92,185 次观看 • 1 年前

With government funding set to expire in September, Margaret Brennan asks OMB Director Russell Vought if the White House is open to a continuing resolution or is preparing for a shutdown in light of Vought’s call for a “less bipartisan” appropriations process in Congress: Vought: “We are not laying the predicate for a shutdown… The bipartisan appropriations process is broken. It leads to omnibus bills. We want to prevent an omnibus bill, and all options are on the table to be able to do that.”

With government funding set to expire in September, Margaret Brennan asks OMB Director Russell Vought if the White House is open to a continuing resolution or is preparing for a shutdown in light of Vought’s call for a “less bipartisan” appropriations process in Congress: Vought: “We are not laying the predicate for a shutdown… The bipartisan appropriations process is broken. It leads to omnibus bills. We want to prevent an omnibus bill, and all options are on the table to be able to do that.”

Face The Nation

11,577 次观看 • 1 年前

Josh Shapiro: "In a society where we have less freedom, which is what the president is doing -- restricting one's ability to speak, which is enshrined in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution -- we are all safe, we are all less free."

Josh Shapiro: "In a society where we have less freedom, which is what the president is doing -- restricting one's ability to speak, which is enshrined in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution -- we are all safe, we are all less free."

Aaron Rupar

43,441 次观看 • 10 个月前

Trump says in a second term he will seek to repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 so that he will have unilateral power as president to seize funds appropriated by Congress for govt agencies and programs and use that money to give out tax cuts.

Trump says in a second term he will seek to repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 so that he will have unilateral power as president to seize funds appropriated by Congress for govt agencies and programs and use that money to give out tax cuts.

Ron Filipkowski

603,212 次观看 • 3 年前

Take out your number two pencil the word is impoundment! Trump has FOUND $300Billion allocated for the GREEN NEW SCAM and other Dem priorities and it’s being redirected to THE AMERICAN 🇺🇸 PEOPLE or back to the US TREASURY! Dems are apoplectic!

Take out your number two pencil the word is impoundment! Trump has FOUND $300Billion allocated for the GREEN NEW SCAM and other Dem priorities and it’s being redirected to THE AMERICAN 🇺🇸 PEOPLE or back to the US TREASURY! Dems are apoplectic!

TRUTH NOW ⭐️⭐️⭐️🗽 🎺

55,727 次观看 • 1 年前

One of President Trump's secret weapons to drain the swamp will be the reviving of the Impoundment process to cut out waste & force bureaucrats to refund extra tax funds. "I will then use the President's long-recognized impoundment power to squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings. This will be in the form of tax reductions for you. This will help quickly to stop inflation and slash the deficit." For once, those crooks in DC will be forced to live within their means. Their rule made us live paycheck to paycheck, and now it'll be the other way around.

One of President Trump's secret weapons to drain the swamp will be the reviving of the Impoundment process to cut out waste & force bureaucrats to refund extra tax funds. "I will then use the President's long-recognized impoundment power to squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings. This will be in the form of tax reductions for you. This will help quickly to stop inflation and slash the deficit." For once, those crooks in DC will be forced to live within their means. Their rule made us live paycheck to paycheck, and now it'll be the other way around.

George

64,245 次观看 • 1 年前

Rep. Russell Fry: "We don't need Congress right now micromanaging a war that the presiden-- or a conflict that the president is trying to engage in"

Rep. Russell Fry: "We don't need Congress right now micromanaging a war that the presiden-- or a conflict that the president is trying to engage in"

Aaron Rupar

109,067 次观看 • 3 个月前

Cory Booker on Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing: "We are literally watching before our eyes a person who's going to come before the United States Senate who is going to completely take an organization that is responsible for enforcing the law where no one is above it to making that organization being subservient to the whims of a president. That is a subversion of the law, and that is a massive sledgehammer to our democracy."

Cory Booker on Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing: "We are literally watching before our eyes a person who's going to come before the United States Senate who is going to completely take an organization that is responsible for enforcing the law where no one is above it to making that organization being subservient to the whims of a president. That is a subversion of the law, and that is a massive sledgehammer to our democracy."

MeidasClips

41,812 次观看 • 9 天前

BANNON: Democrats are trying to call the president's bluff, and he's gonna bring out the heavy siege guns. He's got Russ Vought and Russ Vought, the brother's got a plan. And this is really gonna take a meat axe to the administrative state.

BANNON: Democrats are trying to call the president's bluff, and he's gonna bring out the heavy siege guns. He's got Russ Vought and Russ Vought, the brother's got a plan. And this is really gonna take a meat axe to the administrative state.

Grace Chong, MBI

70,044 次观看 • 10 个月前

.Dana Perino shreds California officials for giving rent assistance to illegal immigrants “In California they are on track to finish re-building the Pacific Palisades in 400 years. But THIS is the emergency that they’re worried about. In 40 years, they haven’t laid a single track of high-speed rail, and yet they want to spend $25 million on this. I do wonder at what point they’re going to realize they’re not winning; there’s only one way to try to solve this which is to take President Trump up on his offer to meet.”

.Dana Perino shreds California officials for giving rent assistance to illegal immigrants “In California they are on track to finish re-building the Pacific Palisades in 400 years. But THIS is the emergency that they’re worried about. In 40 years, they haven’t laid a single track of high-speed rail, and yet they want to spend $25 million on this. I do wonder at what point they’re going to realize they’re not winning; there’s only one way to try to solve this which is to take President Trump up on his offer to meet.”

The Five

117,952 次观看 • 9 个月前