Rand Paul Puts The Screws To Wobbly Republicans

Especially when it comes to things that don't exist or aren't true. Probably what attracts Huggy wearing, marshmallow roasting, tin foil hat wearing, crap consumers, like you. :rolleyes:

You are dumb enough to believe that there's a "Deep State" and you accuse me of wearing a tin foil hat?
 
I tried to tell him, but I'm not Rachel "Roswell" Maddow.:D

This post merely emphasized your sheer rampant stupidity.



You idiots are so arrogant with your absolute partisan stupidity. :rolleyes:


From BBC a NOT LEFT WING SOURCE.


"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the decision by the GAO said.

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) "withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)", the ruling continued.

The 1974 Impoundment Control Act says it is illegal for the White House to withhold aid appropriated by Congress. It also says the White House must first alert Congress before it delays or blocked funds, which the Trump administration did not do.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51139939



WTF you keep needing to see the facts is unbelievable. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
No, it wasn't.

Obstruction of Congress is NOT obstruction of justice.

Yes, it was. But House Democrats decided on taking a narrow view of potential articles of impeachment, and settled on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, but not obstruction of justice.

I never said they were. In fact, I distinctly said just the opposite.

Do try to keep up with the rest of the class.
 
Yes, it was. But House Democrats decided on taking a narrow view of potential articles of impeachment, and settled on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, but not obstruction of justice.

I never said they were. In fact, I distinctly said just the opposite.

Do try to keep up with the rest of the class.

You seem to believe in alternate reality wherein your words somehow mean something different to you than the rest of the universe.

Obstruction of Congress is NOT obstruction of justice. Even an idiot can see that the words are different. Different words have different meanings. Yet you distinctly said:

Obstruction of justice in this context doesn't refer only to judicial activity, you fucking moron. One of the potential articles of impeachment considered for Trump was exactly obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice REQUIRES the judiciary be involved since Congress is not the branch of government where "justice" can be meted out.

Further, the House decided that it would "take too long" (their words) to get a court order so they decided to impeach the President on some made up charge that appears NOWHERE in the Constitution.

They also DID NOT "consider" charging Trump with Obstruction of Justice because THEY KNEW he had not done so. Thus, such an article was never a "potential article of impeachment".

If you believe the House can impeach on a basis that they just make up, then you must also believe they can impeach for "walking and chewing gum at the same time". Or, in other words, the limitations for impeachment specifically set out in the Constitution are meaningless. Which begs the question; exactly WHO is acting lawlessly when such conduct occurs?
 
Yes, it was. But House Democrats decided on taking a narrow view of potential articles of impeachment, and settled on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, but not obstruction of justice.

I never said they were. In fact, I distinctly said just the opposite.

Do try to keep up with the rest of the class.

As usual, you are full of shit. You have been instructed, pay attention.:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top