Gary Johnson said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

A legal opinion from a swamp attorney is supposed to be a "bombshell"?

---

The point of the GAO is to be the swamp watchdog. Trump is the swamp.

If they released an adverse legal opinion about Hillary this board would cream itself.

---

The GAO said the PPACA would be revenue neutral...

The GAO is wrong a whole lot...

The GAO opinion has as much legal status as your opinion.

Rapier108 said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

A legal opinion from a swamp attorney is supposed to be a "bombshell"?

---

Given the reaction from Democrats and leftists, they think it is.

Many think Trump will be marched out in chains by end of the day. Some are calling for people to storm the White House and remove him by force. Twitter is in the biggest meltdown in a while.

The thing is, the money was delivered within the time Congress said it had to be delivered.

---

This is an argument, that if dems were smart, would have actually pursued. One that probably actually deserved debate within the halls of the government. Does the ICA need to be reworked to have more teeth. Did the president derive his authority from National Security or Foreign Policy laws that need to be reworked?

The power of the purse is very important. Its my opinion that a 2 month delay of a couple million bucks to Ukraine is hardly important enough for impeachment. But its worth discussing and debating as a country so nothing important is impounded in the future.

But of course people looking for ANY excuse to remove Trump is over playing their hand. Which is why dem leaders ignored this possible violation. Its a boring accounting crime, which is almost as boring as their international game of telephone they paraded on national tv.

If there are witnesses, can they be cross examined by opposition handlers?

goags2 said:

---

If there are witnesses, can they be cross examined by opposition handlers?

---

Based on the NPR report this morning (did not watch Maddow), the last thing the left wants is to put Parnov under oath. And the only way he says he will cooperate is for immunity in his unrelated campaign finance violation.

So again, I think this is just a bunch of noise that plays to the Dem narrative that the Senate isn't doing the trial portion justice.

My theory...every "bombshell" the dems drop adds one percentage point to Trump's approval rating. So by all means idiot libs/dems KEEP THEM COMING!!!!

As long as the economy keeps churning, trade deals get signed, unemployment stays at historic low levels this all looks absolutely ****ing ridiculous to the average voter. We're talking about aid that did get released and no investigation announced about a country the average voter couldn't locate on a map.

You got 'em this time Dems...KEEP IT UP!!!!

hbtheduce said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

A legal opinion from a swamp attorney is supposed to be a "bombshell"?

---

Given the reaction from Democrats and leftists, they think it is.

Many think Trump will be marched out in chains by end of the day. Some are calling for people to storm the White House and remove him by force. Twitter is in the biggest meltdown in a while.

The thing is, the money was delivered within the time Congress said it had to be delivered.

---

This is an argument, that if dems were smart, would have actually pursued. One that probably actually deserved debate within the halls of the government. Does the ICA need to be reworked to have more teeth. Did the president derive his authority from National Security or Foreign Policy laws that need to be reworked?

The power of the purse is very important. Its my opinion that a 2 month delay of a couple million bucks to Ukraine is hardly important enough for impeachment. But its worth discussing and debating as a country so nothing important is impounded in the future.

But of course people looking for ANY excuse to remove Trump is over playing their hand. Which is why dem leaders ignored this possible violation. Its a boring accounting crime, which is almost as boring as their international game of telephone they paraded on national tv.

---

There was a new government in Ukraine. The President has sole discretion on whether to recognize governments...it's a constitutional issue not superseded by statutes. Trump was justified in delaying any actions (including obligating funds) that recognized the new government while he vetted it.

No, the delay in funding did not violate the Impoundment Act.

Patentmike said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

A legal opinion from a swamp attorney is supposed to be a "bombshell"?

---

Given the reaction from Democrats and leftists, they think it is.

Many think Trump will be marched out in chains by end of the day. Some are calling for people to storm the White House and remove him by force. Twitter is in the biggest meltdown in a while.

The thing is, the money was delivered within the time Congress said it had to be delivered.

---

This is an argument, that if dems were smart, would have actually pursued. One that probably actually deserved debate within the halls of the government. Does the ICA need to be reworked to have more teeth. Did the president derive his authority from National Security or Foreign Policy laws that need to be reworked?

The power of the purse is very important. Its my opinion that a 2 month delay of a couple million bucks to Ukraine is hardly important enough for impeachment. But its worth discussing and debating as a country so nothing important is impounded in the future.

But of course people looking for ANY excuse to remove Trump is over playing their hand. Which is why dem leaders ignored this possible violation. Its a boring accounting crime, which is almost as boring as their international game of telephone they paraded on national tv.

---

There was a new government in Ukraine. The President has sole discretion on whether to recognize governments...it's a constitutional issue not superseded by statutes. Trump was justified in delaying any actions (including obligating funds) that recognized the new government while he vetted it.

No, the delay in funding did not violate the Impoundment Act.

---

I'm not 100% convinced anything illegal happened. Its highly likely that the WH lawyers had some justification or argument why the ICA didn't apply.

It is apparent, that congress didn't like the withholding of funds. That's fair, check and balances. So actually have hearings on why it happened with the expressed interest in protecting legislative power. The fact dems jumped straight to impeachment is why this is all a farce.

FireAg said:

---

Did we "get him" yet?

---

#AnyDayNow

Hyde's house visited by the FBI this morning.

Will Trump be impeached again after he is re-elected?

Beat the Hell said:

---

Will Trump be impeached again after he is re-elected?

---

If he is reelected and the Democrats hold the House, yes.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Hyde's house visited by the FBI this morning.

---

Got him, time #38,281,293.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Why would the Ukrainian government investigate whether the American government was surveiling an American diplomat in The Ukraine?

---

1. It was Trump's private team, not the government
2. It's illegal

---

PI's are illegal? Interesting.

The GAO thing is just a legal opinion correct?

I mean it's not even something that anyone has been indicted. Seems as meaningless as a law fare blog or the opinion of Rudy. The only difference is that it's the swamps opinion.

It's not even a legal opinion IMO. It's just their opinion. I think the actual courts have given the president lots of latitude and even the responsibility to make sure funds are not misused. Dems were making this same dumb argument a month ago and it was discredited.

McConnell must be salivating looking at these putzes from the House deliver these articles in front of him right now.

One thing is certain-Dems sure are good at trampling on all of the good news going on in the country at the precise time. The USMCA gets passed and instead of hearing more about that we've got pencil neck Schiff on tv speaking in front of the Senate.

aggiehawg said:

---

So when the government is shut down over budget disputes is the ICA tolled is a good question.

---

Interesting.

It has already been said, but the wording of the GAO finding is wrong. I am interested in your opinion on the matter. The ICA states The President may not impound approved funds, but if the funds were released within the schedule provided they were neither impounded nor were they technically delayed. Even a delay would have required the funds be held past the 45 days.

The finding should have read "had the funds not been delivered within the passed schedule, the OMB would have run afoul of the ICA."

The Left doesn't want people don't realize is that the GAO is a CONGRESSIONAL agency. It is pitted against the OMB, an EXECUTIVE agency. Neither is unbiased, but the Dems acting like the GAO is some type of all-supreme judge is just a lie.

Little Rock Ag said:

---

The Left doesn't want people don't realize is that the GAO is a CONGRESSIONAL agency. It is pitted against the OMB, an EXECUTIVE agency. Neither is unbiased, but the Dems acting like the GAO is some type of all-supreme judge is just a lie.

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Beat the Hell said:

---

Will Trump be impeached again after he is re-elected?

---

If he is reelected and the Democrats hold the House, yes.

---

I say "good for them." Their obsession has helped erode and disintegrate their traditional base of supporters and made them the Dems a party of extremists. Keep up the good work, Lefties!

If anyone is interested. 1pm

Quote:

---

Speaker celebrated impeachment with souvenir pens, bearing her own golden signature, brought in on silver platters.

---

Surely this is incorrect. Souvenir pens?

If so, they should sell them to their rad lib base. Would be a good fundraiser for the broke DNC. Hell. I'd even buy one for old Gary.

Wildcat said:

---

Quote:

---

Speaker celebrated impeachment with souvenir pens, bearing her own golden signature, brought in on silver platters.

---

Surely this is incorrect. Souvenir pens?

If so, they should sell them to their rad lib base. Would be a good fundraiser for the broke DNC. Hell. I'd even buy one for old Gary.

---

To be fair, this is nothing new. Similar occurrence during Clinton impeachment.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/15/senate-gave-out-commemorative-pens-in-clinton-impeachment-trial-with-glaring-typo/amp/

They have her name on them. Perhaps she has them for all such occasions (signing bills, resolutions, etc.)?

Surely they didn't do a special run and put her name on them specifically for signing impeachment. Or perhaps that's why she held them? It takes a couple of weeks for a custom ordered pen.

1872walker said:

---

Possibly splitting hairs, but that was for Senators swearing their oath, where each was given a pen to use and keep. This was the Speaker of the house holding a ceremony with cameras in a celebratory signing, complete with smiles. Her signature, but pens for all.

---

Agreed, and why I referred to it as "similar." I think it's tacky to commemorate historical events with cheap trinkets...in both cases.