The Impeachment Thread

#33,860
#33,860
Orange_Crush said:
Eh... You're pretty liberal with the "indicative" "logic". You should just be honest with yourself and everyone else. Call a spade a spade. You don't like him. You filter everything through that. Don't try to put any other face on that post.

He doesn't "lack [...] experience managing an (sic) multi-layered organization". His Trump brand is a multi-layered organization. The mass exits and firings may indicate that he's over his head. It may also indicate that he's draining the swamp like he claimed he'd do.

You positing an ability to speak with authority on either one is toro caca. Just be honest that you dislike him and are talking out of your ... to express your dislike. (Speaking of pathetic and silly...)
Click to expand...
I've never cared for Trump and it started long before he was POTUS. Always thought he was a blowhard. That being said, not liking him has absolutely nothing to do with ideology. I listen to the words that come out of his mouth. I see what he tweets. I watch how he behaves. The only people talking out of their asses are his proud supporters like you making the same false claims as he makes. Oh BTW, plenty of Republicans and conservatives dislike him
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coug
#33,861
#33,861
Orange_Vol1321 said:
They didn't list any law broken. It's DOA.
Click to expand...

Readin' iz harde!

And I quote, from the article:

But GAO rejected that claim, saying Trump’s decision, carried out by the budget office, was a violation of the Impoundment Control Act, which requires notification to Congress of any such delay in an appropriation of funds.
 
#33,863
#33,863
AM64 said:
You know the kid's "job" was payoff to get old Joe to act as an unregistered lobbyist, don't you? Isn't that the simplest answer to the whole mess? Isn't there a saying about the simplest answer is generally the answer? Ask yourself why else a company would pay an inexperienced fool an exorbitant salary if not for connections.
Click to expand...

All you will hear is crickets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol, AM64 and volfanjustin
#33,865
#33,865
evillawyer said:
Readin' iz harde!

And I quote, from the article:

But GAO rejected that claim, saying Trump’s decision, carried out by the budget office, was a violation of the Impoundment Control Act, which requires notification to Congress of any such delay in an appropriation of funds.
Click to expand...
He uses a BOT called threadreaderapp to read for him.
 
#33,866
#33,866
evillawyer said:
Readin' iz harde!

And I quote, from the article:

But GAO rejected that claim, saying Trump’s decision, carried out by the budget office, was a violation of the Impoundment Control Act, which requires notification to Congress of any such delay in an appropriation of funds.
Click to expand...
You mean the one that Obama broke 44 times?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol and AM64
#33,867
#33,867
evillawyer said:
Readin' iz harde!

And I quote, from the article:

But GAO rejected that claim, saying Trump’s decision, carried out by the budget office, was a violation of the Impoundment Control Act, which requires notification to Congress of any such delay in an appropriation of funds.
Click to expand...
Lol
 
#33,869
#33,869
Orange_Vol1321 said:
I wouldn't comment on Twitter if you don't know how to use it. I'll see if they have a Cronkite option for you.
Click to expand...
You use a BOT to scour the depths of Twitter. That is what a troll does. You are not trying to inform when you post, You're trying to deceive. I know how you use it.
 
#33,871
#33,871
BowlBrother85 said:
The Senate, hopefully. Now, they could refuse to comply with a subpoena from a Republican-controlled Senate, I suppose, but that would come with considerably more political consequences for some of them and be much harder for the White House to explain.

If Trump has done nothing wrong here, then there shouldn't be any reason to not want all of these people to testify. If Trump has only conducted himself legally and ethically, then all they could do is provide exculpatory evidence. Right ?
Click to expand...

No. In all seriousness I can't fundamentally disagree with you any more than with your assertion. Any person in this country has and should always have a presumption of innocence. This along with free speech is the most important rights we have in this country. There has been nothing fair about the way the House has operated regarding impeachment. And as the most partisan among us on this board I would never support a party whose #1 taking point now is "oh if he did nothing wrong then he should welcome the opportunity" BS it's not the accused responsibility to prove their innocence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 0nelilreb and tennvols77
#33,874
#33,874
vols40 said:
No. In all seriousness I can't fundamentally disagree with you any more than with your assertion. Any person in this country has and should always have a presumption of innocence. This along with free speech is the most important rights we have in this country. There has been nothing fair about the way the House has operated regarding impeachment. And as the most partisan among us on this board I would never support a party whose #1 taking point now is "oh if he did nothing wrong then he should welcome the opportunity" BS it's not the accused responsibility to prove their innocence.
Click to expand...

I’m curious how this is going to be answered because during the Kavanaugh hearings all we heard was “ this is not a trial “ . Well this time it is .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#33,875
#33,875
Matt2496 said:
The GAO just so happens to release this OPINION, the day of impeachment articles being delivered to the Senate by the House.

Just a coincidence I suppose
Click to expand...

Well you know what they say about opinions. I’m sure they have an opinion on intent as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top