Listen up

[DieHardBrownsFan]

 

[calfoxwc]

Never could stand his stupid show on tv, never liked him...but when he ran for pres, I came to realize he was serious and genuine.

He's done nothing to disprove that - he is actually president of the entire country, ALL AMERICANS.

Eight years of obaMao, eight years of Clintons, 4 years of Carter.... wasted years - never helped the poor, never protected our Constitution...

   Pres Trump is the real deal. THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP !!!

Can you imagine if higgardly had been elected? supreme court - deep state owned. leftwing judges everywhere, Constitution gone, rights gone, etc etc etc etc.

  America would have been gone.

[Gorka]

Trumps greatest accomplishment was getting elected. It saved the country.

[Westside Steve]

Actually conservative African Americans should start leaning more and more toward the Republican Party.* It seems like sooner or later you would have to be embarrassed by such a large number of your people underperforming in so many different ways. Worst yet being associated with that particular Bunch just because of your skin color. Being denigrated because you speak proper English or get an education is such a crock of shit.

WSS

 

* PS by the way I do understand that by and large parties are bullshit but still...

[TexasAg1969]

1 hour ago, Gorka said:

Trumps greatest accomplishment destroyed the constitution.

FIFY

[calfoxwc]

23 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Feel like a farquing Yunce

fixed it for you.

[Gorka]

1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said:

FIFY

Your kind fixes nothing, you destroy.

[Gorka]

1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said:

FIFY

Or did you mean Flaunting  Ignorance For You??

[LogicIsForSquares]

1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said:

FIFY

I am by no means a fan of Trump but what exactly has he done to destroy the constitution? I wasn't amped on his usage of EO to ban bumpstocks but what else has he done? 

I am all for having legit gripes but I don't see Trump as some doomsday character.

[Gorka]

 How about some actual usurping of the Constitution:

Mueller ditched the presumption of innocence. In the normal course of things, all of us are considered innocent unless a jury finds us guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mueller switched this around. Rather than finding conclusive evidence of Trump’s guilt, he had to find conclusive evidence of his innocence. Since he didn’t find this exculpatory evidence, Mueller deemed Trump “not exonerated.”

Pathetic.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/robert-mueller-investigation-legal-standard-obstruction/

 

 

[Gorka]

7 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

I am by no means a fan of Trump but what exactly has he done to destroy the constitution? I wasn't amped on his usage of EO to ban bumpstocks but what else has he done? 

I am all for having legit gripes but I don't see Trump as some doomsday character.

1. The Chrysler Bailout

Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.

This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.

2. Obamacare Implementation

One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:

• The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
• Later that year, the administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
• The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
• A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
• Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
• The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
• HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, House v. Burwell is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)

3. Political Profiling by the IRS

After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.

4. Recess Appointments

In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.

5. DACA and DAPA

Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.

Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.

6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses

In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.

7. The Clean Power Plan

In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.

The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).

8. The WOTUS Rule

In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.

9. Net Neutrality

In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.

The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.

That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.

10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade

In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.

That’s Only The Beginning

OOPS MY BAD..that was Obama

[LogicIsForSquares]

4 minutes ago, Gorka said:

1. The Chrysler Bailout

Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.

This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.

2. Obamacare Implementation

One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:

• The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
• Later that year, the administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
• The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
• A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
• Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
• The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
• HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, House v. Burwell is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)

3. Political Profiling by the IRS

After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.

4. Recess Appointments

In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.

5. DACA and DAPA

Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.

Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.

6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses

In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.

7. The Clean Power Plan

In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.

The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).

8. The WOTUS Rule

In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.

9. Net Neutrality

In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.

The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.

That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.

10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade

In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.

That’s Only The Beginning

OOPS MY BAD..that was Obama

Obama was trash can water. The Affordable Care Act EO royally fucked the great insurance my wife and I had beforehand. Trump shouldn't be trying to emulate him with the usage of EOs to skip over having legislators hear issues out. 

[Gorka]

35 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

I am by no means a fan of Trump but what exactly has he done to destroy the constitution? I

That's been Tex's new catchphrase btw...the previous one had something to do with conservatives selling out our morals...some shit like that.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

57 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

I am by no means a fan of Trump but what exactly has he done to destroy the constitution? I wasn't amped on his usage of EO to ban bumpstocks but what else has he done? 

I am all for having legit gripes but I don't see Trump as some doomsday character.

Tex has been brainwashed by San Francisco South (Austin).

[calfoxwc]

maybe texsag is a human internet bot.......

[TexasAg1969]

43 minutes ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

Tex has been brainwashed by San Francisco South (Austin).

Or maybe by this you fools. The real Republicans, not the pretender & minions  in the WH. LOL!🤗

 

[TexasAg1969]

1 hour ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

I am by no means a fan of Trump but what exactly has he done to destroy the constitution? I wasn't amped on his usage of EO to ban bumpstocks but what else has he done? 

I am all for having legit gripes but I don't see Trump as some doomsday character.

Pay attention grasshopper. He has ordered everyone NOT to cooperate with Congressional inquiries and not to provide any documents nor appear in person when subpoenaed, both of which Congress has the right to do under the Constitution as part of the 3 way sharing of power. I'll refer you back to Madison's fed. paper #51 by way of explanation of where it came from in the first place. Take your time. I'll wait. And go read your copy of the Mueller report. The case for obstruction is all spelled out there for you if you take the orange colored glasses off for a change.

[calfoxwc]

more texsag bull. Even rosenstein recommended dirty comey be fired. After 4 investigations? After 2 FREAKING YEARS OF NOTHING SPECIAL PROSECUTOR GARBAGE? WITH 16? Higgardly favoring pitbull attorneys? They got NOTHING?

    Mueller was a great friend of comeys, mueller was a participant in URANIUM ONE, mueller should have recused himself from the beginning, and after all the failure to get PRes Trump and undo the election...

he keeps the fake investigation going anyways for months to try to raise as much hell - up to the 2018 election?

AND, mueller had STRZOK and PAGE on his staff?  AND worst of all, they are in deep crap over lies to the FISA court from the beginning?

    Texsag, you are just a parroting demoquack hack. But I"m sure you can get a job with commander rosenbloom as his spit shine guy of these days.

[calfoxwc]

After four investigations, most all Americans with any integrity see that the dems in congress are being asswholes, and it's time to stop playing their stupid game. They are going to regret it.

   Only about 40 of 425whatever reps in Congress are corrupt enough to call for impeachment for nothing.

and mueller admitted he had nothing.

you have nothing of any genuine substance.

[Gorka]

5 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Pay attention grasshopper. He has ordered everyone NOT to cooperate with Congressional inquiries and not to provide any documents nor appear in person when subpoenaed, both of which Congress has the right to do under the Constitution as part of the 3 way sharing of power. I'll refer you back to Madison's fed. paper #51 by way of explanation of where it came from in the first place. Take your time. I'll wait. And go read your copy of the Mueller report. The case for obstruction is all spelled out there for you if you take the orange colored glasses off for a change.

Again, what has Trump done to "destroy" the Constitution?

[TexasAg1969]

19 minutes ago, Gorka said:

Again, what has Trump done to "destroy" the Constitution?

Apparently this is too dense to understand.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

6 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Pay attention grasshopper. He has ordered everyone NOT to cooperate with Congressional inquiries and not to provide any documents nor appear in person when subpoenaed, both of which Congress has the right to do under the Constitution as part of the 3 way sharing of power. I'll refer you back to Madison's fed. paper #51 by way of explanation of where it came from in the first place. Take your time. I'll wait. And go read your copy of the Mueller report. The case for obstruction is all spelled out there for you if you take the orange colored glasses off for a change.

Because the democrats on the judiciary committee are frauds.  I wouldn't cooperate either.  Neither would you.  Give me a break.

[OldBrownsFan]

1 hour ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

Because the democrats on the judiciary committee are frauds.  I wouldn't cooperate either.  Neither would you.  Give me a break.

Nailed it Diehard. 

[LogicIsForSquares]

8 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Pay attention grasshopper. He has ordered everyone NOT to cooperate with Congressional inquiries and not to provide any documents nor appear in person when subpoenaed, both of which Congress has the right to do under the Constitution as part of the 3 way sharing of power. I'll refer you back to Madison's fed. paper #51 by way of explanation of where it came from in the first place. Take your time. I'll wait. And go read your copy of the Mueller report. The case for obstruction is all spelled out there for you if you take the orange colored glasses off for a change.

First, you must have me confused with someone else otherwise I don’t get the “orange colored glasses”. Second, if all true, why would Dems or some of the Republicans just sit by and let it slide? 

[Gorka]

2 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Apparently this is too dense to understand.

It is not. You stated in typical liberal Trump hating hyperbole that Trump has "destroyed" the Constitution. He has not.

You're disingenuous and a fraud.

[TexasAg1969]

One hook and 4 fish plus a hanger-on. I think that may be a new record.🐟🐠🐡🧜‍♀️ 🏄‍♂️

🤹‍♂️🎣🏆

[calfoxwc]

texsag is "fishing" with a warped bare hook and no line.

and he brags about his garbage twit comments?

egad.

[tiamat63]

 

Listen up?  ( so so so) 

"Cuz ya can't say nothing..you'll shut me down with a push of your button". 

 

A little Beastie reference for the thread title. 

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

 

 

Donald J. Trump

25 mins · 

Just had a big victory in Federal Court over the Democrats in the House on the desperately needed Border Wall. A big step in the right direction. Wall is under construction!